THE CONTEXT: Fifty years after the Emergency, senior constitutional functionaries and prominent ideological voices have questioned the 1976 insertion of the“secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble. Within a single week, Vice-President, RSS general secretary, and Union ministers have all called for a debate on their continuance, re-igniting a long-standing fault-line in India’s constitutional politics.
THE BACKGROUND:
-
- 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976): Added “secular” and “socialist” to the Preamble and introduced Part IVA (Fundamental Duties).
- 44th Amendment Act (1978): Rolled back several Emergency-era changes but deliberately retained the Preamble revision and Fundamental Duties.
- Citizens’ Duties Awareness Programme (CDAP) 2019: Launched by the Department of Justice to popularise Part IVA, reaching 486 million citizens through multiple ministries and volunteer networks.
THEORETICAL & CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK:
| Concept | Constitutional Anchorage | Key SC Pronouncements | Keywords |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secularism | Art. 25-28; Preamble | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) – basic structure; S.R. Bommai (1994) – “positive tolerance” | Basic structure doctrine, constitutional morality, principled neutrality |
| Socialism | Directive Principles (Art. 38, 39, 43) | Minerva Mills (1980) – “obligation to secure social justice” | Egalitarian order, welfare state, distributive justice |
WHAT IS THE CURRENT DEBATE?
-
- The ideological challenge argues that the 1976 insertion was historically extraneous, politically motivated, and normatively obsolete. Critics cite the Constituent Assembly’s conscious omission of the terms, while supporters invoke the living-constitution approach and entrenched secular-socialist jurisprudence.
WHY HAS THE DEBATE RESURFACED IN 2025?
-
- Semicentennial Symbolism: 50 years of the Emergency offer political space to revisit its legacy.
- Electoral Realignments: Identity politics and majoritarian narratives seek philosophical clarity.
- Policy Shift to “Market-Plus-Welfare”: Critics view socialism as an ideological straitjacket amid liberalisations.
- Rise of Cultural Nationalism: Pushes for an Indic, civilisation-state framing beyond Western secularism.
HOW HAS THE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE?
-
- 1994 — S.R. Bommai: Declared secularism a basic feature beyond amendment.
- 1980 — Minerva Mills: Affirmed that socialism animates the Directive Principles.
- 2024 — Khanna CJ Bench: Dismissed writ petitions challenging the 42nd Amendment, holding that the words have acquired “widespread acceptance” over four decades.
DRIVERS OF THE DEBATE:
-
- Constitutional Originalism vs Living Document: Clash between fixed-text fidelity and evolutionary interpretation.
- Economic Liberalisation Pressures: Market reforms question command-economy connotations of socialism.
- Cultural Majoritarianism: A narrative that equates secularism with “pseudo-secular appeasement.”
- Judicial Activism Fatigue: Political actors resent perceived judicial gatekeeping of ideological projects.
- Civic Literacy Deficit: Only 22 percent of respondents in a 2023 CSDS survey could recall all Fundamental Duties, spawning misperceptions.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE:
-
- France (1905): Laïcité model separates church and state yet protects welfare guarantees.
- Ireland (1973): Removed explicit reference to Catholicism, paralleling India’s inclusive secularism.
- South Africa (1996): Post-apartheid Constitution embeds “social justice” and “human dignity” akin to India’s socialist-secular blend.
THE ISSUES:
-
- Doctrinal Ambiguity: Neither term is precisely defined in the text, leading to interpretive elasticity and politicised litigation.
-
- Implementation Gap: Welfare entitlements often remain aspirational; secular ideals are undermined by communal polarisation.
- Federal Tensions: Divergent state policies on religion (e.g., anti-conversion laws) test uniform secular norms.
- Judicial Overload: Frequent constitutional challenges burden the Supreme Court, delaying socio-economic jurisprudence.
- Public Awareness Deficit: Low constitutional literacy impedes “constitutional morality” at the grassroots.
- Ideological Polarisation: Binary narratives obscure nuanced socio-economic realities and impede consensus.
- Economic Pragmatism vs Ideology: Social-sector spending competes with fiscal consolidation, questioning socialist commitments.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Civic Culture Incubators: Fund community constitution clubs through CSR contributions to encourage debates, mock parliaments and social-cohesion projects. This localises abstract values and pre-empts communal flashpoints.
- Strengthen Cooperative Federalism: Institutionalise an annual Constitutional Values Conclave in the Inter-State Council to harmonise state laws on religious freedom and welfare entitlements, minimising federal litigation.
- Judicial Capacity-Building: Create specialised Constitution Benches with fixed calendars and dedicated research staff to expedite ideological challenges, preserving judicial clarity without docket congestion.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Preamble’s secular-socialist commitment is not a relic of the Emergency but an evolving articulation of the Republic’s normative core. While Parliament is free to debate, the Supreme Court’s basic-structure filter ensures that any amendment must preserve the Constitution’s soul. The government should therefore focus less on excision and more on realising the substance of secularism and socialism through transparent governance.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Discuss each adjective attached to the word ‘Republic’ in the preamble. Are they defendable in the present circumstances stances? 2016
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. The ongoing debate over the ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble lead the tension between constitutional originalism and the basic structure doctrine. Analyse considering recent political developments and Supreme Court rulings.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word