 |
|
The Supreme Court of India recently engaged in a heated exchange with petitioners seeking to remove the words "socialist" and "secular" from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The bench, led by Justice Sanjeev Khanna, the CJI-in-waiting, questioned the petitioners' motivations, suggesting that their intent was to challenge the very foundation of India's secular character. This case, involving petitions filed by individuals such as Subramanian Swamy and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has brought to the fore the crucial debate surrounding the fundamental principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The court's stance was firmly rooted in the precedent set by numerous previous judgments that have upheld secularism as an integral and unchangeable feature of the Constitution. These judgments, referenced by the bench, firmly establish secularism as a fundamental element of the "basic structure" of the Indian Constitution, signifying its inviolable nature. Justice Khanna underscored this point, emphasizing that the Court has consistently protected secularism as a core constitutional principle, making it impervious to amendment or alteration.
The addition of "socialist" to the Preamble, introduced during the 42nd Amendment in 1976, was also a subject of scrutiny. Justice Khanna delved into the evolution of India's economic landscape, pointing out that despite the presence of the term "socialist", India has embraced a more liberal economic approach since the 1990s. He highlighted the distinction between India's understanding of "socialism" and its Western interpretation, suggesting that in the Indian context, it represents a commitment to fostering equal opportunities for all citizens. This interpretation aligns with the court's recognition of the right to equality as a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.
The court's line of questioning and its emphasis on the constitutional significance of secularism and the right to equality highlight the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental principles. This case serves as a reminder of the enduring debate surrounding the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions, especially as they relate to the core values of a nation. The court's commitment to protecting these values, as reflected in its judgments and arguments, underscores its crucial role in upholding the integrity and spirit of the Indian Constitution.