BALRAM SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA 2024

BALRAM SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024

Case Title and Citation: Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another 2024 INSC 89

Factual Background

Multiple writ petitions were initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution. These words were added by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. The Petitioners raised several core objections, including the argument that the inclusion was faulty because the Constituent Assembly had deliberately abstained from using the word ‘secular’. They also contended that the word ‘socialist’ restricts the economic policy choices of the elected government. Furthermore, the insertion was challenged because the amendment was ‘passed’ during the Emergency on November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha had ended on March 18, 1976, meaning there was allegedly no public will to sanction the changes. The argument of retrospectivity was also raised, claiming the insertion resulted in falsity as the Constitution was adopted in 1949.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, is constitutionally valid.
2. Whether the Parliament’s power to amend the Preamble under Article 368 is curtailed by the fact that the Constitution was adopted on a prior date (November 26, 1949).
3. Whether the word ‘socialist’ restricts the economic policy choices of the elected government.
4. Whether the amendment is vitiated because it was passed during the Emergency period.

Decision of the Supreme Court

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, dismissed the writ petitions. The Court found that the challenge lacked merit and held that the constitutional position regarding the secular and socialist nature of the Constitution remains unambiguous.

Reason for the decision

The Court provided reasoning focused on legislative power, established constitutional doctrine, and the delay in challenging the amendment:

• Parliamentary Power and Retrospectivity: The power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, rests unquestionably with the Parliament under Article 368. The Court ruled that the date of the Constitution’s adoption does not restrict this power, and the retrospectivity argument would equally apply to all amendments, which is an untenable position.
• Secularism as a Basic Feature: Even though the Constituent Assembly initially eschewed the term ‘secular,’ the constitutional provisions already reflect a secular ethos. The Court affirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, as previously established in judgments like Kesavananda Bharati and S R Bommai. Secularism in the Indian context has the widest possible scope and mandates that the State maintains no religion and treats persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination, as embodied in Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29, and 30.
• Interpretation of Socialist: The term ‘socialist’ in the Indian context does not mandate a specific economic policy or structure (whether left or right), nor does it restrict private enterprise. It signifies the State’s commitment to be a welfare State and to pursue social and economic justice, ensuring no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The Court noted that the Nine-Judge Bench ruling in Property Owners Association affirmed that the Constitution, framed in broad terms, permits the elected government to adopt an economic structure for which it is accountable to the electorate, thereby removing any ambiguity regarding the model of governance.
• Lack of Justification for Delay: The Court highlighted that the challenge was filed in 2020, forty-four years after the amendment, by which time the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ had achieved widespread acceptance and their meanings were understood by the people of India. Since the additions have not restricted policies or infringed upon constitutional rights, the Court found no legitimate justification to undertake an exhaustive examination of the challenge after such a long delay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble, dismissing the challenge primarily on the grounds that Parliament possessed the necessary amending power under Article 368 and that both terms reflect principles already inherent in the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court affirmed that ‘socialist’ does not restrict the State’s choice of economic governance, and ‘secular’ is integral to the constitutional scheme, rendering the challenge without merit after four decades of public acceptance..