SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India
25 November 2024 · 2024 INSC 893
Constitutional validity of the insertion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble
Source and extraction notes
- Machine extraction can contain spacing, reading-order and character errors. Check quotations against the unchanged source PDF. No claim of word-for-word visual certification is made.
Draft summary
AI-assisted historical explanation. Independently checked against the source by an AI reviewer. Not reviewed by a lawyer. This historical summary does not certify the current legal position.
In one sentence
The Court rejected the challenge to adding socialist and secular to the Preamble.
Question decided
Did the Forty-second Amendment validly insert these terms in the Preamble?
Key holdings
- Parliament can amend the Preamble under Article 368, subject to constitutional limits; the original adoption date does not freeze its wording.Source PDF pages: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
- Secularism requires equal treatment of faiths. Socialism in this context does not compel one fixed economic model or prohibit private enterprise.Source PDF pages: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Outcome
The writ petitions were dismissed without issuing notice.
Source PDF pages: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.Plain-English explanation
The petitioners challenged words inserted in 1976, arguing in part that the Preamble retained its original adoption date. The Court rejected that objection: the power to amend the Constitution includes its Preamble. It also explained the terms through earlier constitutional decisions. Secularism reflects equal treatment and freedom of faith; socialism expresses a commitment to welfare and social and economic justice without prescribing an unchangeable economic system. The order considered the long delay and the settled understanding of these expressions. It did not reopen every constitutional question about the emergency period or approve every possible constitutional amendment. For readers, its central point is that these two expressions remain part of the Preamble and do not by themselves prevent an elected government from choosing lawful economic policies.
Relevant law
- Constitution: Preamble and Article 368
- Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
Opinions
Joint order of Chief Justice Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Research notes and limits
Describe this as dismissal of the specific petitions; do not imply that the power to amend is unlimited.
Judgment - source material
All pages of the downloaded court document follow, including separate opinions, annexures and any final joint order. This is machine-extracted original text, not an AI rewrite. Use the PDF to check exact wording.
Source PDF page 1
Open this page in the original PDF2024 INSC 893
W.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 1 of 7
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Civil) No 645 of 2020
Dr Balram Singh and Others Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Another Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No 1467 of 2020
Miscellaneous Application No 835 of 2024
O R D E R
Writ Petition (C) No 645 of 2020 and Writ Petition (C) No 1467 of 2020
These writ petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words
‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976. The challenge is 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. B esides, it is submitted that the Forty-second Amendment is Source PDF page 2
Open this page in the original PDFW.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 2 of 7 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. Therefore, it is argued, that there was no will of the people to sanction the amendments. 2 The writ petitions do not require detailed adjudication as the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest . Two expressions—'secular' and 'socialist' and the word 'integrity' w ere inserted in the Preamble vide t he Constitution (Forty -second Amendment) Act, 1976. These amendment s 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. Amendments to the Constitution can be challenged on various grounds, including violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. 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. 3 While it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, the Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with Article 368 . In 1949, the term
Source PDF page 3
Open this page in the original PDFW.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 3 of 7 '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. This principle is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment. 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. Article 25 guarantees all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, other fundamental rights, and the State's power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice s. Article 26 extends to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, manage religious affairs, own and acquire property, and administer such property in accordance with law. Furthermore, Article 29 safeguards the distinct culture of every section of citizens, while Article 30 grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. Despite these provisions, Article 44 in the Directive Principles of State Policy permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens.
Source PDF page 4
Open this page in the original PDFW.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 4 of 7 4 A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution Bench judgments in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1 and S R Bommai vs Union of India 2, have observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. In R C Poudyal v. Union of India 3, the Court elucidated that although the term 'secular' was not present in the Constitution before its insertion in the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty -second Amendment) Act, 1976, secularism essentially represents the nation's commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination. In M Ismail Far uqui (Dr) v. Union of India 4, this Court elaborated that the expression secularism in the Indian context is a term of the widest possible scope. 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. However, 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. In essence, the concept of secularism represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme's pattern. 5 Similarly, the word 'socialism' , in the Indian context should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government 1 (1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges) 2 (1994) 3 SCC 1 (9 Judges) 3 (1994) Supp (1) SCC 324 4 (1994) 6 SCC 360
Source PDF page 5
Open this page in the original PDFW.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 5 of 7 of the people's choice at a given time . Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, 'socialist' denotes the State's commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity. India has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways. In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The word ‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). 6 The argument that the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, should be struck down due to its enactment during the Emergency and the extended period of the Lok Sabha was previously deliberated in Parliament, during the consideration of the Constitution Forty -Fifth Amendment Bill, 1978. During these deliberations, the inclusion of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' came under scrutiny. Subsequently, this Bill was renumbered and called the Constitution Forty -Fourth Amendment Act 1978. The word 'secular' was explained as denoting a republic that upholds equal respect for all religions, while 'socialist' was characterized as representing a republic dedicated to eliminating all forms of exploitation—whether social, political, or economic. However, the said
Source PDF page 6
Open this page in the original PDFW.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 6 of 7 amendment as proposed to Article 366 was not accepted by the Council of States. No doubt , in Excel Wear v. Union of India and Others 5, this Court had held that the addition of the word socialist in the Preamble may enable the Court to lean more in favour of nationalization and State ownership of industries, yet this Court recognized private ownership of industries, which forms a large portion of the economic structure. The majority judgment of this Court in the 9 -Judge Constitution Bench in Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others6 has cleared any doubt and ambiguity, as it is held that the Constitution, as framed in broad terms , allows the elected government to adopt a structure for economic governance which would sub -serve the policies for which it is accountable to the electorate. Indian economy has transitioned from the dominance of public investment to the co -existence of public and private investment. 7 The fact that t he writ petitions were filed in 2020, forty-four years after the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ became integral to the Preamble , makes the prayers particularly questionable. This stems from the fact that these terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by “We , the people of India” without any semblance of doubt. The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected governments, provided such actions d id not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution . Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or 5 (1978) 4 SCC 224 6 2024 INSC 835
Source PDF page 7
Open this page in the original PDFW.P. (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 & others Page 7 of 7
justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44
years. The circumstances do not warrant this Court’s exercise of discretion
to undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position
remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic
pronouncement. This being the clear position, we do not find any
justification or need to issue notice in the present writ petitions, and the
same are accordingly dismissed.
8 Pending applications, including the applications for intervention, shall also
stand dismissed.
Miscellaneous Application No 835 of 2024
1 The Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The Registry is directed to
register the Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14904 of 2024.
2 In view of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 and Writ
Petition (Civil) No.1467 of 2020, the Writ Petition shall be treated as
dismissed.
..…...….......………………......CJI.
[Sanjiv Khanna]
....…........……………….…........J.
[Sanjay Kumar]
New Delhi;
November 25, 2024.