Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Inclusion of ‘Socialist’ And ‘Secular’: The Supreme Court on Monday (25 November 2024) delivered a historic verdict. The court dismissed the petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution, as per the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976.
Table of Contents
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the amendment power of Parliament extends to the Preamble as well. The date of adoption of the Preamble does not limit the power of Parliament to amend the Preamble. On this basis, the petitioner’s argument was rejected. “It has been almost so many years, why is this issue being raised now,” the CJI said during the hearing.
The order was reserved on November 22
Let us tell you that earlier, the bench had rejected the petitioners’ plea to send the matter to a larger bench. However, CJI Khanna was about to pronounce the order after getting annoyed with the interruptions of some lawyers, but he said that he will pronounce the order on Monday.
CJI Khanna said during the hearing on November 22, “Being socialist in the Indian sense is understood only as a welfare state. The way socialism is understood in India is very different from other countries.
In our context, socialism primarily means welfare state… that’s all. It has never stopped the private sector which is flourishing well. We all have benefited from it. The word socialism is used in a different context, which means that the state is a welfare state and it should stand for the welfare of the people and provide equality of opportunities.”
Lawyer Jain had raised this objection
CJI Khanna further said that “secularism” has been held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution in the SR Bommai case. To this, lawyer Jain said that the amendment was passed without listening to the people, as it was done during the Emergency and the inclusion of these words would be tantamount to forcing people to follow certain ideologies.
When there is a cut-off date in the preamble, how can words be added later. Jain further said that the matter needs a detailed hearing. He argued that the matter should be considered by a larger bench. After this, the CJI clearly rejected the argument.
Also Read:
Election Results: How Mahayuti Secured a Landslide Victory in Maharashtra: Top 5 Reasons
