Summarize

Simplifying... Inshort

The Supreme Court of India has defended the country's secularism and socialism, stating they are core features of the Constitution and cannot be amended.
This came in response to petitioners, including a BJP leader and an advocate, who questioned the legitimacy of these principles, arguing they were added during the Emergency without proper debate.
The court, while refusing to issue notices on the petitions, agreed to review relevant documents submitted by the petitioners.

Was a long read? Making it simpler...

Next Article

The PIL seeks to remove the words, which were added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976

'You don't want India to be secular?': SC to petitioners

By Tanya Shrivastava

Oct 21, 2024

05:15 pm

What's the story

The Supreme Court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the inclusion of the words "secular" and "socialist" in the Preamble to the Constitution. The PIL seeks to remove the words, which were added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, reiterated that these words are part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Constitutional pillars

Court on significance of 'secularism' and 'socialism'

Justice Khanna said both "socialism" and "secularism" have changed meanings over the years. He said, "Socialism can also mean there has to be fair opportunity for all, the concept of equality." He added secularism is a core feature of the Constitution and unamendable under any circumstances.

Amendment debate

Petitioners question amendment's legitimacy

Petitioners, including Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, had argued against the amendment's legitimacy. They claimed it was introduced during the Emergency without proper parliamentary debate. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay had suggested that adding these words opened a "Pandora's box," potentially allowing other core principles to be altered.

Liberty and rulings

Court questions impact on liberty

Justice Khanna, however, shot back asking if liberty had been curtailed since the amendment. He asked, "Has liberty been curtailed? Tell me?" The court refused to issue notices on the petitions but agreed to look into relevant documents submitted by petitioners. Separately, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to replace "Hindutva" with "Indian Constitutionalism" in its rulings.