Opinion: Constitution and Preamble, an unbreakable marriage
The insertion of the words ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ and ‘integrity’ needs to be looked into as part and parcel of constitutional fidelity
By Nayakara Veeresha
India is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of India. The Government of India is planning to hold the celebrations throughout the year. After deadlock and lots of pressure from the opposition parties, the government agreed to a debate on the subject of Constitution@75 in the Lok Sabha (on December 13-14) and Rajya Sabha (on December 16-17). The Constitution has been the subject of debate of the 18th general elections and has acquired the status of one of the electoral issues except during the Emergency period.
Also Read
Such a large-scale political awareness and debate took place only when the National Democratic Alliance government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee formed the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. It submitted the report in 2002 consisting of two volumes with its terms of reference: “how best the Constitution can respond to the changing needs of efficient, smooth and effective system of governance and socio-economic development of modern India within the framework of parliamentary democracy, and to recommend changes, if any, that are required in the provisions of the Constitution without interfering with its basic structure or features”.
Political Values
Set against this backdrop, it is essential to enquire upon not only the relevance of the Constitution but also its Preamble wherein the political values — Fraternity, Equality, Liberty and Justice — form the soul of the Constitution.
On November 25, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict on some of the public interest litigations (PIL) challenging the insertion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976. The judgment not only dismissed the pleas but also reiterated that there was no reason to move these pleas to a larger bench of the court. By doing this, the verdict in general and the court specifically acted as a guardian of Constitutional Governance in its true sense.
This is significant in these critical times wherein the tussle between the Executive and Judiciary is going on in an undercurrent way. The Supreme Court of India’s verdict in the case of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs State of Kerala (1973) paved the way for establishing the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Some of the constitutional office bearers such as Vice- President of India while speaking at the 83rd Conference of All India Presiding Officers in January 2023 expressed that subsequent to this verdict “the highest court delivered significant rulings on matters that it held pivotal to this ‘Basic Structure’ and in the process, parliamentary sovereignty was compromised”. For this, he cited the example of the court’s striking down of the 99th Amendment, namely the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, as unconstitutional on the premise that it violated the Basic Structure, in October 2015.
In constitutionalism, the evolution of the doctrine of ‘Basic Structure’ during the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala verdict (1973) is a significant moment. Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi called for revisiting the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine. Such contemporary developments have pushed the Constitution into the phase of Jurgen Habermas ‘legitimation crisis’.
Parliamentary Sovereignty
In this context, the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in Dr Balram Singh and Others Vs Union of India and Another (2024) assumes significance in restoring not only the legitimacy of the Constitution but also the Preamble. By upholding the insertion of the words ‘secular’, ‘socialist’ and ‘integrity’, the highest court rekindled the spirit of parliamentary sovereignty in amending the Constitution and its provisions. This is in accordance with the fact that the Constitution is a living document and evolves with time, needs and the aspirations of the citizens.
While dismissing the pleas, the court observed that “India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith” in accordance with Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The Constituent Assembly Debates rejected the idea of a theocratic state and opposed the insertion of the word secular at that point due to the fear of balkanisation on a religious basis and also due to the situation that prevailed in the aftermath of partition. It reiterated both Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala and SR Bommai vs Union of India verdicts have asserted secularism as one of the ‘Basic Features’ of the Constitution.
By upholding the insertion of the words ‘secular’, ‘socialist’ and ‘integrity’, the highest court has rekindled the spirit of parliamentary sovereignty in amending the Constitution and its provisions
The verdict mentions that the word ‘socialist’ “in the Indian context should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected government. 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”. The Indian economy has transitioned from the dominance of public investment to the co-existence of public and private investment. The court did not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging the 42nd Amendment after nearly 44 years.
‘Constitutional Fidelity’
The verdict manifests the Goodwin Liu et al (2009) concept of constitutional fidelity in practice at the core. According to them, constitutional fidelity means “to be faithful to the Constitution is to interpret its words and to apply its principles in ways that preserve the Constitution’s meaning and democratic legitimacy over time”. The insertion of the words ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ and ‘integrity’ needs to be looked into as part and parcel of Constitutional fidelity/sanctity thereby deepening Constitutional Governance. These words have acquired legitimacy over four-and-a-half decades and have become part of the day-to-day life of the citizen.
By rightly rejecting these petitions, the court has nullified the politics surrounding the insertion of these words. More than a hundred Amendments indicate the resilience and evolution of the document as a living and dynamic nature of the Indian Constitution. It’s not static but emerges with each passing day with the socio-political and cultural changes of the country. The commitment to constitutional fidelity is the need of the hour especially by the constitutional office bearers so as to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and Preamble.
(The author is lecturer at SVD Siddhartha Law College, Vijayawada. Views are personal)
