The ongoing debate about India’s key constitutional values is not new. However, direct legal challenges to the validity of certain core principles have emerged more recently.

The controversy gained traction when individuals such as Subramanian Swamy, Ashwini Upadhyay, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Balram Singh filed petitions with the Supreme Court, challenging the inclusion of the words ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. They argued that these additions dilute India’s Hindu identity and infringe on individual freedoms.

The challenge to secularism and socialism in the Preamble

The petitioners contend that these terms are not fundamental to the Constitution’s basic structure and can be removed without compromising the Republic’s core principles. They also argue that the framers of the Constitution had initially chosen not to include these terms.

The 42nd Amendment and its socio-political context: The incorporation of ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ occurred through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, during the Emergency  (June 25, 1975 – March 21, 1977) imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This amendment altered the Preamble’s wording, transforming it from “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic” to “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.”

This amendment was a response to the socio-political challenges of the time, aimed at reinforcing the government’s commitment to social justice and secularism. It sought to ensure state neutrality in religious matters and promote social welfare, reflecting the demands of a period marked by social unrest and economic disparities in the 1960s and 1970s.

Following the 42nd Amendment’s inclusion of the terms ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ in the Preamble, it becomes crucial to revisit the perspectives of the Constitution’s framers. Their insights reveal an unspoken yet profound intent: to guide the nation toward an ethos where the collective conscience naturally embodies the spirit of the Constitution.

They envisioned a society that would internalise these principles as a logical extension of the democratic and inclusive values inherent in the document, even when not explicitly articulated.

Historical context: The framers’ views on secularism and socialism   

The 42nd Amendment, enacted during the Emergency period, was a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional history. During this era, various societal groups — students, workers, and farmers — expressed dissatisfaction with the slow pace of social justice and economic growth.

The benefits of industrial and agricultural advancements were unevenly distributed, leading to a growing divide between the rich and the poor, particularly in rural areas. Food shortages and high inflation in the 1960s exacerbated poverty, while the Green Revolution, despite increasing food production, disproportionately benefited large landowners, leaving small farmers marginalised.

The 1970s brought further challenges, including an energy crisis triggered by rising oil prices and a global recession, worsening economic conditions. These issues fuelled the rise of socialist and left-wing movements across India, advocating for greater wealth redistribution.

Prominent leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) called for a ‘total revolution,’ seeking political and economic reforms to address corruption and inequality. Supported by students and intellectuals, Narayan’s movement exerted significant pressure on the government to implement changes.

Consequently, the inclusion of secularism and socialism in the Constitution reflected an attempt to address these socio-political and economic challenges and strengthen India’s democratic framework.

However, these additions, which were meant to reinforce India’s democratic and secular framework, have not gone uncontested. In the decades following the 42nd Amendment, legal challenges have been brought before the courts questioning the necessity and relevance of these terms.

The framers’ intent: Secularism and socialism in the Constituent Assembly

To those who believe in the enduring relevance of ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism,’ the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition by Swamy and others challenging their inclusion in the Preamble was reassuring. The Court affirmed that these terms are integral to the Constitution’s basic structure. It emphasised secularism as a fundamental principle and interpreted socialism as a means to ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were fully aware of the significance of these principles and did not deliberately avoid explicitly incorporating these terms.

During the Constituent Assembly debates, K.T. Shah, a member, proposed that the Preamble should explicitly declare India as a ‘Secular, Federal, Socialist’ state. He argued, “I propose that the Preamble of the Constitution should clearly and categorically declare that India shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist state... Our commitment to these ideals should be unmistakable and beyond ambiguity, enshrined in the Constitution itself.”

Shah’s insistence on unequivocal terminology underscored his belief in the importance of distinctly affirming these values. While his proposal was not accepted at the time, it reflects the growing sentiment in favour of these principles among some members of the Assembly.

In addition to K.T. Shah’s call for expressly naming India as a ‘Secular, Federal, Socialist’ state, several other Constituent Assembly members advocated for embedding these principles.

Somnath Lahiri, the sole communist representative, argued passionately for economic and social justice, urging the Constitution to protect workers and the underprivileged.

He believed that the Constitution should embody social welfare, reflecting his commitment to socialism. Lahiri’s objections to restrictive language on fundamental freedoms underscored his view that a democratic Constitution should not inhibit genuine political dissent, a value he saw as integral to a socialist democracy?.

Similarly, Madhav Kamat and R.V. Dhulekar pushed for provisions that would emphasise social equity and justice, envisioning a Constitution that fostered economic and social parity. Their focus on creating an equitable framework aligned closely with socialist ideals, highlighting a commitment to reducing socioeconomic divides.

Damodar Swarup Seth also echoed this sentiment, advocating for economic democracy to complement political democracy. Seth viewed the state’s role as crucial in promoting equality and ensuring that all citizens, especially the economically disadvantaged, had fair opportunities.

Together, these perspectives represent a significant segment of the Assembly that supported a constitution reflecting secular and socialist ideals, even if these specific terms were not formally adopted at the time. ?

Ambedkar’s pragmatic approach: Flexibility in policy

However, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, adopted a more pragmatic approach. He believed that matters related to the state’s policy and social and economic organisation should be decided by the people based on changing circumstances.

He famously said, “What should be the policy of the state, how the society should be organised in its social and economic side, are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances… It is the intention of the Assembly not to commit the Constitution to a particular form of economic structure.”

Ambedkar did not oppose the inclusion of ‘socialism’ but was cautious about binding the Constitution to a specific ideology. His focus was on ensuring social justice and economic equality without resorting to ideological labels.

Ambedkar advocated for concrete measures, such as the Directive Principles of State Policy, which aimed to provide adequate means of livelihood and ensure equal pay for equal work — goals aligned with socialist ideals. He believed that the Constitution should remain adaptable and flexible, allowing future generations to make decisions based on their evolving needs.

Nehru’s vision: Secularism and socialism as inherent ideals

Similarly, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, did not advocate for explicitly labelling India as a secular or socialist state. He maintained that these principles would naturally guide the nation’s governance, stating, “I am convinced that the future government of free India must be secular in the sense that government will not associate itself directly with any religious faith but will give freedom to all religious functions.”

Nehru’s approach emphasised the importance of practice over terminology, reflecting his belief that India’s commitment to these ideals would be evident in its governance. In his view, secularism was not just a political concept but a vital reflection of India’s diverse society, ensuring equal treatment for all religions without state interference.

In his speeches and writings, Nehru made it clear that the principles of secularism and socialism were not imports but were aligned with the country’s civilisational ethos. Nehru’s approach to socialism, on the other hand, was geared toward fostering economic equity and uplifting the disadvantaged sections of society.

Secularism, though not explicitly named, was, thus, deemed essential. Leaders like Ambedkar, Nehru, and Sardar Patel envisioned a nation guaranteeing religious freedom and equal treatment of all religions. Instead of labelling India as a secular state, the framers focused on securing religious freedom and equality through constitutional provisions like Article 25.

Similarly, socialism was a significant focus, though not directly named. The Assembly emphasised the creation of a welfare state and the reduction of economic disparities to promote social justice and equality. These ideals were embedded in the Directive Principles, which advocated measures such as equitable resource distribution and the eradication of systemic inequalities — values that later found clear recognition through the 42nd Amendment.

Ultimately, the framers focused on enshrining socio-economic rights and democratic freedoms within the Constitution, carefully leaving room for future interpretation and adaptation.

This intentional flexibility allowed the document to serve as a guiding framework, capable of responding to the nation’s shifting social and political needs over time. Their approach emphasised a commitment to democratic values and inclusivity, aiming for a constitution that could adapt and continue to resonate with successive generations.

Thus, a closer examination reveals that the framers of the Constitution were keenly aware of evolving social dynamics. While secularism and socialism were discussed, they chose not to plainly include these terms in the original 1950 Constitution. Between 1946 and 1949, the Assembly debated the fundamental principles guiding the nation but opted for inclusive language that would avoid alienating diverse groups within the nascent democracy.

These debates within the Constituent Assembly, and the careful selection of language, reflect a nuanced approach to India’s identity — an approach that did not openly name secularism or socialism, but embedded them within the broader vision of social justice and democracy.

Legal challenges

The addition to the Preamble of the Constitution intended to strengthen India’s democratic and secular ideals, has faced legal challenges since its introduction in the 42nd Amendment.

Critics contend that terms like ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were unnecessary, as the Indian Constitution already upheld these principles through its provisions and spirit. Moreover, some argue that their inclusion was a politically driven decision during the Emergency, a period characterised by authoritarian tendencies. This controversy underscores the enduring complexity of balancing constitutional ideals with political realities.

Right-wing critics often claim that secularism in India has been selectively applied, influencing certain policies related to religious practices and governance. They contend that the democratic framework of India inherently reflected secular values even before these words were formally inserted into the Preamble.

Meanwhile, the inclusion of the term ‘socialist’ has been contested by those who believe it restricts economic policy. They argue it imposed a rigid economic model at odds with India's eventual economic liberalisation starting in the 1990s.

Legal challenges concerning the interpretation of constitutional norms and amendments arose over the years. One notable case, the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), established the basic structure doctrine, which restricts Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in a manner that alters its core principles. The case was led by the head of a Hindu religious mutt in Kerala, who contested the validity of amendments that sought to curtail fundamental rights, particularly concerning property, and reduced judicial review over legislative actions.

This landmark ruling reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the Constitution’s essential structure and has influenced subsequent debates, including those surrounding the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble.

While Subramanian Swamy’s case did not directly challenge this doctrine, it raised discussions about the limits of constitutional amendments and the importance of preserving fundamental values. Although the Supreme Court did not use Swamy’s case to renounce the values cherished by the framers of the Constitution, it later addressed the matter in another case, which many fear significantly impacted the nation’s pursuit of socialist goals.

This apparent inconsistency in the judiciary’s evolving stance raises questions about whether its approach to key constitutional principles is undergoing a transformation that could affect the foundational values it has traditionally safeguarded.

Supreme Court ruling on Article 39(b): State power vs. private property rights

The matter in question, here, the recent Supreme Court ruling on the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution revolved around the management and distribution of ‘material resources of the community.’ The case was brought forward by a coalition of private industrialists and property holders challenging the state’s authority to take over private resources for redistribution.

At the heart of the matter was whether privately owned resources could be considered public assets, enabling the state to exercise control over their distribution to subserve the common good. The petitioners argued that such state intervention violated their right to property, while proponents contended that redistribution served the public welfare under Article 39(b).?

CJI’s critique of Justice Krishna Iyer’s interpretation: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, leading a nine-judge bench in one of his last sittings as CJI, on 5th November 2024, critiqued the late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s expansive interpretation of Article 39(b) in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977). Justice Iyer had advocated for broad state control over private assets to achieve social justice.

CJI Chandrachud described this as a ‘rigid economic theory’ constraining constitutional flexibility, stating, “The doctrinal error in the Krishna Iyer approach was postulating a rigid economic theory, which advocates for greater state control over private resources, as the exclusive basis for constitutional governance.” He further noted that endorsing such rigidity would impose a particular ideology on future governance.

Although Justice Chandrachud did not directly mention Marxism, some have interpreted his focus on avoiding rigid economic doctrines as a subtle critique of Justice Iyer’s perceived Marxist leanings.

Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia respond to criticism: Justice Chandrachud’s views, however, sparked a significant response from fellow judges such as Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Justice Nagarathna, in a concurring opinion that diverged in spirit, deemed the critique ‘unwarranted and unjustified.’ She stressed that past judgments reflected the socioeconomic realities of their time, rooted in constitutional aspirations rather than a narrow ideology. “Can we really label past judgments as a disservice merely because they reflect the socio-economic values of their time?” she questioned. Justice Dhulia similarly described the remarks as ‘harsh’ and ‘avoidable,’ emphasising the need to respect historical judicial contributions?.

SC’s final judgment: A flexible interpretation of Article 39(b)

In its final judgment, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion favoured a more flexible interpretation of Article 39(b). It sought to balance state intervention with property rights, acknowledging the need for evolving economic policies. This verdict marks a departure from the earlier expansive approach to state control endorsed by Iyer, highlighting the judiciary’s ongoing effort to reconcile economic governance with constitutional mandates?.

A shift in constitutional and economic interpretation: The Supreme Court’s latest verdict marks a shift in constitutional and economic interpretation, signalling a movement from viewing Directive Principles as mechanisms for transformative social justice toward a more market-driven approach.

CJI Chandrachud emphasised the need to avoid ‘rigid economic theories,’ suggesting that constitutional governance should remain adaptable to evolving socio-economic contexts. This view distances itself from Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s expansive interpretation, which historically favoured state-led initiatives for equitable resource distribution.

Implications of the judgment: Concerns over social justice and equity

Critics argue that this ruling may narrow the state’s power to regulate private resources for public welfare. By emphasising private property rights and economic pragmatism, it could reduce the government’s capacity to implement large-scale welfare measures targeting marginalised populations.

This may slow down poverty alleviation and widen economic disparities in a nation where systemic inequities persist. Rural and agrarian populations, reliant on state-driven land reforms and cooperative movements, could face reduced state intervention, affecting their socio-economic prospects.

The growing tension between economic growth and social justice: The judgment reflects a broader jurisprudential shift that prioritises market-friendly policies over welfare-centric mandates aimed at promoting economic democracy. Legal scholars and advocates, such as Rajeev Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan, have voiced concerns that the ruling undermines the transformative potential of the Directive Principles.

They argue that such interpretations could diminish state-driven social justice programmes and reduce the influence of equity-driven judgments historically championed by figures like Justice Iyer.

While proponents suggest this shift aligns with contemporary economic realities and may encourage investment, critics warn that consistently favouring liberalisation without robust social safety nets risks undermining the constitutional balance between individual rights and collective welfare. Balancing market growth with social justice thus remains a critical challenge in interpreting the Constitution’s ethical framework for governance.

Challenges to India’s constitutional values: A rising threat to democracy

The ongoing legal challenges to constitutionalism, supported by influential individuals and reinforced through indirect court rulings, are eroding the values enshrined in the Constitution. These actions signal a grave threat to the nation’s democratic framework. As we have seen, while these core principles have been debated and challenged over time, they remain essential to India’s identity as a secular, socialist democracy.

The increasing calls to remove terms like ‘secularism,’ ‘socialism,’ and others from the Preamble of the Constitution raise serious concerns about the erosion of the values that underpin India’s pluralism, social justice, and equality. If such attempts succeed, they could alter the balance of governance, diminishing the state’s obligation to ensure economic equity and social welfare — principles that have long been central to India’s constitutional promise.

The potential consequences of undermining secularism and socialism are far-reaching. They risk dismantling the constitutional safeguards that have allowed India to manage its vast diversity while promoting social and economic inclusion.

A move away from these principles could embolden forces that prioritise religious majoritarianism and market-driven policies, further marginalising the vulnerable. As the Supreme Court’s recent rulings highlight, the tension between economic growth and social justice remains a delicate balance.

If left unchecked, challenges to these foundational principles could weaken the integrity of the Indian democracy, compromising its capacity to address the needs of all citizens.

Thus, the defence of secularism and socialism is not merely a legal issue; it is a moral imperative to protect the essence of India’s democratic ethos. The very survival of the Republic, as envisioned by its framers, depends on ensuring that these ideals remain inviolable.

The persistence of such debates reflects the ongoing fragility of democracy in India — a democracy that must be vigilantly safeguarded if it is to remain a beacon of justice, equality, and freedom for future generations.