India's secular Constitution, even without the word
The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched.
Preamble & 42nd Amendment
The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution.
In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'.
The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'.
These were just a few of a whole host of changes made by the 42nd Amendment, which introduced the chapter on Fundamental Duties, added new Directive Principles on State Policy, diluted powers of judicial review, and froze delimitation.
Behind these changes
These changes reflected Indira Gandhi's political objectives during the Emergency, a 21-month period during which the Prime Minister ruled by decree.
* Since the 1950s, the tussle between Parliament and the judiciary had revolved around land reform: the political class saw the Court's upholding of fundamental rights, especially the right to property, as placing individual rights over collective rights of people.
With Indira Gandhi taking an explicit leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and romped to victory in Lok Sabha polls later that year with 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') as her campaign slogan — the inclusion of 'socialist' was to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap.
As the 42nd Amendment's Statement of Objects and Reasons read, the addition was meant to 'make the directive principles more comprehensive and give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socioeconomic reforms…'.
* The reason for adding 'secular' to the Preamble was not as explicitly spelt out. But it came at a time when the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the BJP, was emerging as a potent political force.
In the 1967 general elections, the Jana Sangh had won 35 seats, its best performance till then, and the Congress' tally dropped to 283. While the Congress bounced back in 1971, the Jana Sangh nonetheless remained among Indira Gandhi's foremost political opponents through the Emergency, when a number of its leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani were jailed.
'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist… All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira had told Lok Sabha.
* The word 'integrity' was brought into the Preamble at a time when Indira's political rhetoric — and justification for imposing the Emergency — centred around 'forces dividing the nation'.
'When we talk of integrity, it is really the quality or the state of being undivided… Whereas a nation is composed of the people and the country, when we talk of the integrity of the country, we talk of… maintaining the indivisibility of the country along with the unity of the nation,' then law Minister H R Gokhale had said in the Parliament while speaking on the Bill.
The difference they made
While symbolic, the additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…'
Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular.
This view has repeatedly been emphasised by the Supreme Court. Even before the 42nd amendment altered the Preamble, a 13-judge bench in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be done away with.
'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' the ruling states.
In the 1994 Bommai ruling, that dealt with Centre-State relations, the SC again upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
In another landmark ruling in 1980, Minerva Mills v Union of India, which also debated more constitutional amendments made during the Emergency, the Court recognised 'socialism' was a constitutional ideal for the framers. It cited Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy, a non-enforceable policy outline for the state that has several socialist ideas.
'We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice — social, economic and political. We, therefore, put part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved,' the ruling said.
In November 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna dismissed writ petitions challenging the addition of 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the Constitution.
'The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislation or policies pursued by elected governments, provided [they] did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause … for challenging this constitutional amendment…,' the Bench said.
Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
34 minutes ago
- The Print
The Preamble won't be changed back to the original. Here's why
The very first sentence of the Constitution has been studded with a lie for the last fifty years. We don't mind misattributing even grave things to the deceased Constitution makers. The Preamble, a one-sentence credo, carries the date 26 November 1949 in present tense, despite being altered 26 years afterwards. All this while leaders have been propagating with gusto that it is given by a demigod-like leader, BR Ambedkar. The irony of Indian politics can be understood by the condition of the Preamble of the Constitution. Our habit of playing with words and phrases is in full play here. Just review the issue. The Preamble of the original Constitution (1950) described India as a democratic republic. Twenty-six years later, two heavy political terms were added to it: 'secular' and 'socialist'. India was re-christened as 'democratic socialist secular republic' only on 26 November 1949. Now, fifty years after that deceit—intended or not—there is again a clamour to revert it to the original. No surprise if this turns out to be just another game of our leaders. The change was made during the Emergency. And the amendment was passed in the Parliament without genuine deliberation, as the Opposition was put in jail. It was perhaps a plot of an intellectual coterie that convinced Indira Gandhi to do it—she was not an ideologue like her father to flaunt such heavy terms. Also read: JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru Tampering with basic structure The amendment proved to be a great distortion of the Constitution. Look at the facts: First, all political theorists considered the original Preamble remarkable. The famed British political scientist Ernest Barker began his 1952 book Principles of Social and Political Theory with the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He said that it stated 'in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the book'. This was a unique commendation for the original Preamble. Second, in political science or law teaching in India, the Preamble was called the soul and foundation of the Constitution. Therefore, to tamper with it was interfering with its soul. Third, the Supreme Court of India in the Berubari Union case (1960) described the Preamble as not part of the Constitution but an overall guiding principle of it, through which other provisions of the Constitution may be understood. So, the Preamble was itself a standard, a scale. And whoever heard of tampering with a scale? Fourth, the Supreme Court again, in 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, declared that while the Preamble of the Constitution is not exempt from amendment, its basic structure cannot be changed. It grates against what was done three years later with it. Their Lordships, too, turned a Nelson's eye to this great contradiction. On all those four counts, it is undeniable that the alteration made to the Preamble was grave. The consequences have been graver still. The change made in 1976 hit the basics of the Constitution. It was especially damaging as it was an ideological amendment. It must also be noted that 'socialist' and 'secular' were known concepts to the Constitution makers. In fact, they discussed the issue of adding 'socialist' and 'secular' and rejected it. It is, therefore, a sin on the part of the leaders of the country to cheat the people by falsely propagandising this distorted Preamble for the last fifty years. Current propaganda, that it all is a 'legacy of Dr Ambedkar', is still more sinful. It is more so because it was Ambedkar himself who categorically rejected the proposal to include the words 'secular' and 'socialist' into the Constitution. It happened in the Constituent Assembly on 15 November 1948. A member of the Constituent Assembly, Professor KT Shah, had proposed to include the words 'secular, federal, socialist' into the Constitution. Rejecting it in toto, Ambedkar said: 'Mr. Vice‑President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place, the Constitution…is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State…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 cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether…It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better…I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form…This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed…The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous…If these directive principles…are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.' Though he did not separately comment on the word 'secular', he dismissed the entire proposal. The Constituent Assembly concurred with him. Despite such rejection, the very terms were inserted into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. It is noteworthy, too, that the Janata Party government comprising the Jana Sangh, socialists, and other non-Congress parties continued with the distorted Preamble. They repealed many sections of the 42nd Amendment through the 44th Amendment in 1978, but they chose to keep the distortion of the Preamble. Thus, all political parties have injured the 'soul' of the Constitution. Also read: Hosabale, Dhankhar, Shivraj & Himanta give Modi yet another reason to amend BJP constitution Vote-bank politics After that, the character of the Constitution itself began to change. It gradually bore bitter fruit. It led to the establishment of an unstated anti-Hindu mindset in Indian politics, which slowly infiltrated the entire political and educational sphere. It is a dark irony that until the word 'secular' was added, the Constitution was indeed secular, treating all communities equally. But after inserting the word 'secular', most Indian leaders—knowingly or unknowingly—interpreted and applied it in ways that effectively rendered Hindus as second-class citizens. Now Hindus have become 'eighth-class citizens', to use the term from Anand Ranganathan's book Hindus in Hindu Rashtra. With time, Indian leaders competitively turned the terms 'minority' and 'secular' into mere tools of vote-bank politics. In the process, the original intent of the Constitution and the universal principles of common justice and morality have been undermined. Since all this unfolded gradually, it constituted a double betrayal of the Indian people. All political parties used the excuse of the 'Constitutional' mandate of secularism and a distorted reading of 'protection of minorities' as per Article 29 to provide facilities and privileges exclusively to non-Hindus. This, too, was against the intent of the Constitution makers, who had taken care to ensure every benefit to minorities without excluding the non-minorities from any benefits. But this exclusion is perpetrated by all rulers, especially after the distortion of the Preamble. In the absence of any political party to sincerely oppose it, Hindus were left with no means to even detect the wrong being done, let alone counter it. Most political leaders intended to woo bulk votes from a particular non-Hindu community. They quietly but openly cheated the unaware, helpless Hindu citizens. Therefore, any hope of correcting the distortion in the Preamble seems futile. Our political parties are deeply immersed in the quagmire of 'minority-ism'. It is unlikely that any of them will find the courage to come out of it. The issue will most probably be used to create a public uproar, each party using it to consolidate its constituencies. There will be talks of discrimination, accusations, and counter-accusations. Nothing more should be expected. Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt clears employment linked incentive scheme
The Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday approved the much-awaited employment-linked incentive (ELI) scheme proposed in the 2024-25 Budget, which will offer fresh recruits in private-sector jobs a month's wages, while firms hiring them will get financial incentives — steps aimed at boosting job opportunities and enhancing skills of working-age people. Govt clears employment linked incentive scheme The sops, aimed at creating 35 million new jobs in two years, will provide direct financial benefits up to ₹ 15,000 in two instalments to 19.2 million first-time employees, Union minister of information and broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw said at a briefing. The outlay cleared by the Cabinet for the roll out stands at ₹ 99,446 crore. Firms participating in the scheme will also get a cash incentive of ₹ 3000 for each additional employee hired for two years, while for companies in the manufacturing sector, the sops will be available for an extended period of four years, according to an official statement. The jobs scheme is part of the PM's package to boost employment and skills, aimed at creating opportunities for nearly 41 million job-seekers in the long run, with a total estimated budget outlay of ₹ 2 lakh crore. 'The aim of the scheme is to create more formal employment and sustain it. It will promote formalization of the workforce, while complementing the national manufacturing mission,' the minister said. According to the government's Economic Survey 2024, India needs to create 7.85 million non-farm jobs every year until 2030 to absorb its expanding labour force, way higher than the current rate of employment. While one part of the scheme deals with one-off payments of a month's wages as direct benefit transfer to all first-time employees entering the workforce in formal sectors, up to a salary ceiling of ₹ 1 lakh, the second component is aimed at contributing a share of salaries. The scheme has been designed to calculate a baseline of employee strength and firms with less than 50 employees will need to hire two additional staffers to be eligible for the incentives. Employers with more than 50 workers will need to add five new employees to the payrolls. All employees need to be registered with the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, the state-backed retirement-income manager, according to the statement. According to the details of the scheme, for new employees with a provident-fund base wage of ₹ 10,000, the incentive for hirers will be ₹ 1000 and for those who fall in the base wage slab of between ₹ 10,000 and ₹ 20,000, the incentive will be ₹ 2000. For salaries of between ₹ 20,000 and ₹ 1 lakh, the benefit will be ₹ 3,000. The scheme therefore will offer incentives tied to EPFO contributions to both employers and first-time employees in the manufacturing sector in the form of funds linked to a specified pay scale for the period during which the plan will be in force. The benefits would be applicable for jobs created between 1 August 2025 and 31 July 2027. 'The target is to create jobs across the country for freshers, with a special focus on the manufacturing sector,' Vaishnaw said. In an earlier briefing, labour minister Mansukh Mandaviya had said the government would put in place foolproof systems and AI-driven technologies to monitor hirings and utilisation of funds provided by the government, when asked how authorities would ensure firms don't pass off existing employees as new ones to benefit from the incentives. The corporate affairs ministry had been tasked with drawing the list of firms which will participate in the employment-linked sops, while the labour ministry was involved in finalizing the proposals.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Bittu blames Mann govt over NOC delay
A day after AAP's Payal MLA Manwinder Singh Giaspura staged a protest over the delay in constructing a road overbridge (ROB) between Doraha and Sahnewal, the issue has taken a political turn with Union minister of state for Railways Ravneet Singh Bittu accusing the Punjab government of misleading the public and stalling the project for 'political reasons.' Ravneet Singh Bittu (HT File) While Giaspura claimed that the Punjab government had issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) to the Railways in November last year, Bittu countered that the NOC was conditional and had been rejected by the Railways as it did not meet required parameters. 'Despite multiple letters written to the chief minister on May 2, May 21, and June 2 requesting a fresh and compliant NOC, no response has been received,' said Bittu. Bittu also produced official correspondence to support his claim, including a recent letter from the executive engineer, PWD Rupnagar, stating that the Punjab government had conditionally signed the general arrangement drawing (GAD) and imposed a condition that Railways must obtain a further NOC before starting execution. 'This is not just a technical issue, it reflects a lack of will,' said Bittu. 'The state government has not cleared the road for a project that directly impacts thousands of commuters.' Bittu alleged that AAP leaders were misrepresenting facts to score political points. 'The MLA is citing a letter from November 2024 as proof, ignoring the series of communications and meetings that followed, including one held in Chandigarh in January to resolve the NOC dispute,' he said. Originally, the project was to be constructed by Punjab's Public Works Department (PWD) through a private contractor. However, the state terminated that contract in August 2021, leading the Railways to take over the project. The dispute arose over conditions in the November 2024 NOC — notably the clause making Railways liable for an arbitration case pending between the state government and the original contractor. Giaspura, during his protest on Sunday, had accused the Union Minister of neglecting infrastructure development in his home district, Ludhiana. He also claimed that Bittu was playing politics by highlighting similar ROB issues in CM Bhagwant Mann's Dhuri constituency, while failing to act locally. In response, Bittu denied the allegations and said, 'This is a classic case of misinformation. The state government continues to delay the project despite knowing its importance. If they are serious, they must issue an unconditional, clear NOC.' The exchange highlights the growing tension between the AAP-led state government and the Centre over infrastructure projects in Punjab. As public pressure mounts, both sides now face questions over whether the political deadlock will give way to actual progress on the ground. Minister blames Bittu for delay in Dhuri overbridge project Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Punjab PWD minister Harbhajan Singh ETO accused Ravneet Singh Bittu of misleading the public regarding the delay in building the Dhuri railway overbridge. The minister said the state government is fully funding the ₹ 54.46 crore project and has already released the money. He shared official documents in Chandigarh to prove that the state government approved the project on October 24, 2024. He pointed out that ever since Mann became CM in 2022, he had promised to construct the overbridge, and the government has been working towards fulfilling that promise. ETO also mentioned that ₹ 1.32 crore has been paid to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and ₹ 1.42 crore to the forest department for utility and land-related work. The minister said that despite all this, the project cannot start because the Railway department has not issued a NOC, even though the central government is not providing any funds for the project. ETO also criticised Bittu for not raising this issue back in June 2021 when traffic at the railway crossing was already 1.75 lakh vehicles daily and Congress was in power. 'Now Bittu is spreading lies to cover up his own failures,' ETO claimed. He challenged Bittu to get the NOC from the Railways. 'If Bittu really cares about the people of Punjab, he should ensure the Railways gives the approval. As soon as the NOC comes, we will start work within three days,' he said. 'The only thing delaying the Dhuri overbridge is the Railways' approval, not lack of money or intent from the Punjab government,' he added.
