The Supreme Court stated that in the Indian context, socialism refers to a ‘welfare state’ while it is considering cases that challenge the inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble.
The Supreme Court stated today, during a hearing on a challenge to the 42nd Amendment that added ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ to the preamble of the Indian Constitution, that the term ‘Socialist’ in this context refers to a Welfare State. The court noted that this term has not negatively impacted the private sector in India. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar have reserved their judgment after a short hearing. Advocate Vishnu Jain, representing a petitioner, argued that the recent ruling by a Nine Judge Bench in the case of Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. regarding Article 39(b) of the Constitution is relevant to the current issue.
Jain pointed out the criticism in that ruling of a previous decision by Justice Krishna Iyer concerning “economic ideology.” The Chief Justice responded, “We have reviewed this. Despite the amendment to the Preamble, this ruling stands. Our interpretation of Socialism in India differs from that of some economists. Here, Socialism mainly signifies a welfare state. It has not hindered the thriving private sector, which has benefited us all. So why delve into this? The term Socialism here is about a welfare state, and it emphasizes equality of opportunity, which is reflected in many Articles. So why be concerned about it?”
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) mentioned that if the Court looks at the recent Judgment from Nine Judges, it must also consider the Judgment in SR Bommai’s case, which discusses the idea of a Welfare State. Jain pointed out that the amendment was made during the Emergency, meaning the public was not consulted. He requested a thorough hearing on the case. The CJI responded that many amendments from that time have been invalidated. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay claimed that the Preamble was amended retroactively without state approval. The CJI noted that the authority under Article 368, which allows for constitutional amendments, includes the Preamble.
Upadhyay also argued that the amendment created “reverse power.” The CJI clarified that the Court would not recognize it as “reverse power.” A Senior Advocate claimed the amendment was made during an extended Parliament session. The CJI informed him that he could not submit a Written Submission for an intervenor but could file a separate Writ Petition if desired. Upadhyay then stated that the petition had been shared with the Attorney General (AG) and the Solicitor General, requesting the AG’s presence in the case. Dr. Subramanian Swamy argued that the amendment should have been a separate paragraph in the Preamble and that it cannot be claimed these words were adopted in 1949.
The CJI decided not to hear the matter further and announced that the Court would reserve its Judgment. Last month, the Court agreed to consider whether the terms Secular and Socialist should be removed from the phrase “In our Constituent Assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do Hereby Adopt, Enact And Give To Ourselves This Constitution,” found in the Preamble.
Cause Title: Balram Singh And Ors. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 645/2020]
