New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (November 25) rejected pleas challenging inclusion of words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution of India following an amendment in 1976.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar had earlier reserved its verdict on on a batch of pleas, including former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Amending power of Parliament over Constitution extends to process: Apex Court
The bench, while dismissing the pleas, said that amending power of the Parliament over Constitution extends to the process and the process cannot be nullified after so many years. It also said that what socialism and secularism would mean in the context of India and how it is open to the government how policy on the same is to be followed.
42nd constitutional amendment was moved by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976
The 42nd constitutional amendment was moved by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976, following which the words “socialist”, “secular” and “integrity” were inserted into the Preamble to the Constitution of India from a “sovereign, democratic republic” to a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic”.
“The writ petitions do not need further deliberation and adjudication. Amending power of Parliament over Constitution extends to Preamble. We have explained that after so many years the process cannot be so nullified. The date of the adoption would not curtail government’s power under Article 368 which is not under challenge,” the bench said and added, “Then we have said what socialism and secularism is and how it is open to the government how policy on the same is to be followed.”
What did apex court earlier say?
The bench, while hearing the matter earlier had observed that the amendment to the Constitution that added that the terms “socialist”, “secular” and “integrity” to the Preamble underwent judicial reviews and the it cannot say that whatever the Parliament did during the emergency period was all nullity.
“The subject amendment (42nd amendment) has been subjected to a lot of judicial reviews by this court. The Parliament has intervened. We cannot say that whatever Parliament did at that time (emergency) was all nullity,” the bench had said.
