Saturday, November 16, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Plea filed in Supreme Court challenges inclusion of socialism, secularism in Constitution’s Preamble

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of words socialism and secularism from the Preamble of the Constitution.

The petition contended that the insertion of these words during the Emergency in 1976 through the 42nd Amendment Act was unconstitutional and violated the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

It said the Preamble was an unalterable historical document adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949 and modifying it retrospectively undermined its authenticity.

Upadhyay contended that the amendment was carried out without the ratification of the states and by a Constituent Assembly that no longer existed in 1976.

Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution but it could not alter the historical facts of the Preamble. Any changes to the Preamble must reflect the will of the people through state ratifications, he added.

The petitioner mentioned debates in the Constituent Assembly and the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, stressing on the symbolic and historical importance of the Preamble as a reflection of India’s foundational values. He further said that the insertion of subjective terms like ‘socialism,’ may not align with the country’s evolving democratic aspirations.

As per the petition, the words socialist and secular were inserted during the Emergency without following the due democratic process and did not reflect the will of the people.

As a legacy of the Constituent Assembly, the Preamble should remain unchanged to preserve its historical sanctity.

The plea further contended that the addition of secular has not translated into uniform laws for all citizens, as religious laws still governed many aspects of life.

It submitted that the inclusion of socialist contradicted the nation’s economic leaning toward capitalism, making the insertion ineffective in practice.

The petitioner further contended that the Preamble’s essence must remain intact, even as amendments to the Constitution adapt to changing times.

spot_img

News Update