Supreme Court held that Constitution is a dynamic and living document, capable of adapting to societal changes.

Facts of the Case:

The case involves writ petitions filed 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, 1976. The petitioners contended that these words were added retrospectively, creating a mismatch with the original Constitution adopted on November 26, 1949. They argued that the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were excluded by the Constituent Assembly and claimed the amendment was unconstitutional as it was passed during the Emergency period when the Lok Sabha’s normal tenure had ended.

Contentions of the Appellant:

1. The retrospective inclusion of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble creates inconsistency as the original Constitution was adopted in 1949.
2. The Constituent Assembly had deliberately excluded these terms from the Preamble.
3. The term ‘socialist’ restricts economic policy choices and binds the government unnecessarily.
4. The amendment was passed during the Emergency, under questionable democratic circumstances.

Contentions of the Respondent:

1. Article 368 of the Constitution allows amendments, including those to the Preamble.
2. The terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ reflect evolving interpretations of the Constitution as a living document.
3. The amendments align with the constitutional framework and do not violate the basic structure doctrine.
4. The amendments are widely accepted by Indian society and have not constrained legislation or policymaking.

Issues:

1. Whether the retrospective inclusion of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble violates the Constitution’s original intent.
2. Whether the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, is unconstitutional due to its enactment during the Emergency.
3. Whether the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ restrict economic policies and governance.
4. Whether the long delay of 44 years in challenging the amendment affects its legitimacy.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:

1. Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble.
2. The Constitution is a living document, adaptable to societal evolution. The terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ align with the Constitution’s spirit.
3. The addition of ‘secular’ reflects India’s unique secularism, emphasizing equal respect for all religions without favoring or penalizing any faith.
4. The inclusion of ‘socialist’ in the Preamble ensures the State’s commitment to welfare and economic justice without mandating specific economic policies.
5. The delay of 44 years in filing the petitions undermines their validity, as these terms have gained widespread societal acceptance.

Principle of the Case:

The principle established is that the Constitution is a dynamic and living document, capable of adapting to societal changes. The terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble uphold equality, justice, and non-discrimination, embodying the basic structure of the Constitution.

Final Order:

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and all pending applications, holding that the constitutional amendments were valid, widely accepted, and consistent with the evolving interpretation of the Constitution.

Impact on Public Law and Order:

This judgment reinforces the adaptability of the Constitution to address changing societal values. By affirming the inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble, the Court ensures the promotion of equality, justice, and inclusiveness, which strengthens public law and order by reducing societal discrimination and fostering a sense of unity.

Case Citation:

Supreme Court of India
Dr. Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020, Misc. Application No. 835 of 2024
Date of Judgment: November 25, 2024