Read Time: 05 minutes
The State maintains no religion of its own, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience along with the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their chosen religion, and all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights, top court has observed
The ‘secular’ nature of the State does not prevent the elimination of attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion, when they, in the larger public interest impede development and the right to equality, Supreme Court of India has said.
Top Court has further noted that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble as in 1949, the term 'secular' was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed to religion.
"Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith....The Preamble's original tenets—equality of status and opportunity; fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice - social, economic political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, reflect this secular ethos...", a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar has said.
With this view, the Supreme Court has dismissed petitions challenging the two expressions—'secular' and 'socialist' and the word 'integrity' which were inserted in the Preamble vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.
"These amendments were made in 1976. Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution. The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. This amending power extends to the Preamble....The fact that the Constitution was adopted, enacted, and given to themselves by the people of India on the 26th day of November, 1949, does not make any difference. The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict the power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The retrospectivity argument, if accepted, would equally apply to amendments made to any part of the Constitution, though the power of the Parliament to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged.", the top court has said.
The insertions were challenged before Supreme Court on various grounds, namely, retrospectivity of the insertion in 1976, resulting in falsity as the Constitution was adopted on the 26th day of November 1949; the word ‘secular’ was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word ‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy choice vesting in the elected government, which represents the will of the people.
Court was further told that the Forty-second Amendment was vitiated and unconstitutional as it was ‘passed’ during the Emergency on November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha that had ended on March 18, 1976.
Case Title: Dr. Balram Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Another
Please Login or Register
