DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

          [2024] 11 S.C.R. 947 : 2024 INSC 893

               Dr Balram Singh and Others
                            v.
               Union of India and Another
             (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020)
                        25 November 2024
      [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.]


                     Issue for Consideration
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.

                            Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Constitution (Forty-second Amendment)
Act in 1976 – Words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble –
Challenge to:
Held: 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 26.11.1949, does not
make any difference – The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict
the power under Article 368 of the Constitution – 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 – 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 –
A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution
Bench judgments have observed that secularism is a basic
feature of the Constitution – 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 – Similarly, the word ‘socialism’, in the Indian context
should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of
an elected government of the people’s choice at a given time –
948                                                               [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 –
       That apart, the fact that the writ petitions were filed in the year
       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 –
       There is no legitimate cause or justification for challenging this
       constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 7]

                                  Case Law Cited
       Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [1973] Supp. 1 SCR 1 :
       (1973) 4 SCC 225; S R Bommai v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCR
       644 : (1994) 3 SCC 1; R C Poudyal v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCR
       891 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324; M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of
       India [1994] Supp. 5 SCR 1 : (1994) 6 SCC 360; Excel Wear v.
       Union of India and Others [1979] 1 SCR 1009 : (1978) 4 SCC 224;
       Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra
       and Others [2024] 11 SCR 1 : 2024 INSC 835 – followed.

                                    List of Acts
       Constitution of India.

                                 List of Keywords
       Preamble; Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976;
       Socialist; Secular; Secularism; Article 368 of Constitution; Practice
       of any faith; Prohibition of discrimination against citizens on religious
       grounds; Principle of economic and social justice; Articles 14, 15,
       and 16 of the Constitution; Article 25 of the Constitution; Article
       26 of the Constitution; Article 30 of the Constitution.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                           949

       Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another


                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 645 of 2020
     (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
     With
     Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1467 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application
     No. 835 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Petitioner-in-person.
     Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Ashwani
     Kumar Dubey, Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav,
     Ms. Mani Munjal, Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Advs. for the Petitioners.
     Dr. G.V. Rao, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruchi Ranjan Rai, Prateek Kumar, Chand
     Qureshi, Santi Ranjan Das, Anindo Mukherjee, Vijay Kumar, Rahul
     Mohod, Sanjay Gyan, Keshav Dev, Mohit Yadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal,
     Abid Ali Beeran, Sriram P., Vishnu Shankar, Aditya Santosh, Ms.
     Isha Singh, Ms. Anjali Singh, Nalukettil A.S. Nair, Ms. Maneesha
     Sunil, Ms. Neha Kumari, S. Anbukrishnan, Alakh Alok Srivastava,
     Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Ujjwal Banerjee, Advs. for the Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

     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.
     Besides, it is submitted that the Forty-second Amendment is vitiated
     and unconstitutional as it was ‘passed’ during the Emergency on
     November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha that
950                                                           [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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’
       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. 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 ‘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 practices. Article 26 extends
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         951

        Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another


      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.
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 Faruqui (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 of the people’s choice at a given time. Neither the



1    [1973] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges)
2    [1994] 2 SCR 644 : (1994) 3 SCC 1 (9 Judges)
3    [1993] 1 SCR 891 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324
4    [1994] Supp. 5 SCR 1 : (1994) 6 SCC 360
952                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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


5    [1979] 1 SCR 1009 : (1978) 4 SCC 224
6    2024 INSC 835
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                          953

         Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another


     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 the 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 did not infringe upon fundamental
     and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.
     Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or 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.

     Result of the case: Writ Petitions dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan