You don't want India to be secular?

Highlights

Asks SC on plea to amend Preamble to Constitution

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed that secularism has long been regarded as an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure. The top court made the statement orally while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble to the Constitution. "You don't want India to be secular?" Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked, while hearing the plea alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar. The Supreme Court bench said that the term 'socialism' should not necessarily be interpreted in the western context and the term can also mean that there has to be an equal opportunity for all.

“There are a number of judgments of this court which hold that Secularism was always part of the basic structure of the Constitution. If one looks right to equality and word fraternity used in the Constitution as well as the rights under Part III, there is a clear indication that secular has been held as the core feature of the Constitution,” Justice Khanna said. Khanna also pointed out that, unlike the French model of secularism, India adopted a new model of secularism.

The plea, filed by senior BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy and one Balram Singh, challenged the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution that was made by late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi-led government during the Emergency.

Responding to the top court judge, Advocate Jain said, “We are not saying that India is not secular, we are challenging the amendment”. Jain further argued that Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar had opined that the inclusion of the word ‘socialism’ would curtail personal liberty.

In response, Justice Khanna said, “Socialism can also mean that there should be equality of opportunity, and the wealth of country should be distributed equally. Let’s not take the Western meaning”. It was also argued by the petitioner that the Preamble of the Constitution, as it stood on November 26, 1949, was a definitive declaration, contending that any subsequent amendment adding words such as ‘socialist” and ‘secular’ was arbitrary.

To this, Justice Khanna highlighted that the words introduced by the 1976 amendment were clearly indicated by brackets, making it evident that they were additions. Khanna also pointed out that terms such as ‘unity’ and ‘integrity’ of the nation were also incorporated through this amendment. The bench then agreed to examine the issue in detail and listed the matter for further hearing on November 18.