Socialist and Secular as Integral Part of Constitution | 23 Oct 2024

Source: HT 

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed that "socialist" and "secular" are integral to the Constitution's Basic Structure, rejecting a petition to remove these terms from the Preamble. 

• The Supreme Court upheld the 42nd Amendment, 1976 which introduced the terms socialist and secular saying that these terms hold specific significance in the Indian context, distinct from their Western interpretations. 

What Arguments were Presented for Removal of Terms Socialist and Secular? 

• Rejection by Constituent Assembly: On 15th November 1948, Professor KT Shah proposed including secular and socialist in the Preamble, but the assembly rejected the proposal. 
  • Further attempts to insert the term “secular” into Article 18 of the Constitution were similarly dismissed by the Constituent Assembly. 
• Preamble's Amendment Date: A petitioner claimed the inclusion of socialist and secular terms in the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 was unconstitutional because of the fixed adoption date of 26th November, 1949 and amendments were made in 1976 with retrospective effect. 
  • However, the Court recognised the Constitution as a living document that evolves with societal needs, noting that the inclusion of socialist and secular reflects this evolution. 
• 1989 Amendment to the Representation of People Act: The petitioners challenged the 1989 amendment to the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951 arguing that requiring political parties to pledge allegiance to socialism and secularism for registration infringes on their freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). 

How Western Concept of Secularism Different from Indian Concept?

How Western Concept of Socialism is Different from Indian Concept? 

What is the Role of Indian Judiciary in Shaping Secularism? 

• Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Sahib Case 1962: The Supreme Court asserted that Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution highlight the secular nature of Indian democracy. 
• Kesavananda Bharati Case 1973: The Supreme Court held that secularism was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.  
  • The basic structure doctrine posits that certain core elements of the Indian Constitution have intrinsic value and cannot be altered or removed. 
• SR Bommai Case, 1994: The Court stated that secularism signifies equal treatment of all religions and noted that the term secular, added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 emphasises the fundamental rights protected under Articles 25-28. 
• Ismail Faruqi Case, 1994: The Court held that any property belonging to a religious community could be acquired by the State if deemed necessary after paying fair compensation of the property. 
• Aruna Roy Case, 2002: The Supreme Court of India held that the essence of secularism is non-discrimination of people by the State on the basis of religious differences. 
  • The Court made a distinction between religious instruction and religious education or study of religion and said the latter was permissible, and indeed desirable, while the former was banned. 
• Abhiram Singh Case, 2017: The Court held that secularism does not require the State to be aloof from religion; rather, it mandates equal treatment for all religions.  
  • It acknowledged that religion and caste are integral to society and cannot be entirely separated from politics. 
  • A political candidate or their agent cannot appeal to religion, race, caste, community, or language during elections, as it is considered a corrupt practice (Section 123(3) of RPA). 

What is the Role of Indian Judiciary in Shaping Socialism? 

• Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973: The Supreme Court ruled that socialism is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution's basic structure, reinforcing its role in promoting social justice and equality. 
• State of Karnataka vs Sri Ranganatha Reddy Case, 1977: The Court emphasised that socialism must focus on social good, arguing that nationalisation or acquisition should aim for the common good and equitable wealth distribution. 
• Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978: The judgement emphasised that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which is essential to the socialist principle of ensuring a fair quality of life for all citizens. 
• Minerva Mills Case, 1980: The Supreme Court emphasised the need to harmonise Fundamental Rights with the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), stating that the DPSP should guide state policies to secure social and economic justice in line with socialist principles. 
• Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Case 1982: The judgement framed nationalisation as a necessary step for reorganising the coal industry and safeguarding resources vital for public welfare.  
  • It noted that even if there was a violation of Article 14, Article 31C would protect legislation. 
  • Article 31C protects laws enacted to ensure the “material resources of the community” are distributed to serve the common good (Article 39(b)) and that wealth and the means of production are not “concentrated” to the “common detriment” (Article 39(c)). 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's affirmation of "socialist" and "secular" as integral to the Constitution's Basic Structure reflects the judiciary's role in interpreting these concepts in the Indian context. The distinctions from Western interpretations highlight the unique socio-cultural landscape of India, emphasising inclusivity, social justice, and equitable resource distribution.