Today, November 24, the Supreme Court of India is going to decide a very important case regarding various petitions that have challenged the introduction of the terms "socialist" and "secular" into the Preamble to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency. This amendment is a time-honored affair that was passed in 1976 under the Indira Gandhi regime. Along with the introduction of the word "integrity," it revolutionized the entire constitutional framework.
 |
| Supreme Court of India |
Judicial Review of the 42nd Amendment
C.J. Sanjiv Khanna, with a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar, stated the 42nd amendment had been thoroughly judicially scrutinized over the years. He has noted, “The 42nd Amendment has been reviewed judicially. We cannot say everything Parliament did at that time is null and void.” This observation points to his admission of the judiciary for the amendment's influence, even besides criticism it drew by having been made during the Emergency.
Hence the Supreme Court is likely to be ambiguous as regards whether introducing 'socialist' and 'secular' into the amendment breach the original ethos of the Constitution or whether those entries by Parliament extend beyond reasonable limits.
Historical Background: What Makes the 42nd Amendment- Controversial?
The Emergency period (1975-1977) was the darkest in India's democratic history. During this time, major constitutional changes took place; for example, the Preamble was changed to describe India as a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." The Indira Gandhi government claimed these terms were India's aspirations, while critics viewed them as politically motivated insertions.
The Pending Petitions
Apart from these, the Supreme Court also has pending petitions by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain. The petitions challenge the validity of adding socialist and secular to the Preamble arguing that it is not in conformity with the original intent of the Constitution framers.
The Argument: Socialist and Secular-Still Relevant?
1. Backing for Inclusion
Those in favour of the amendment say that 'socialist' and 'secular' actually imply inequalities in the economic hindrances that hold down the citizens of India, and a religious neutrality on the part of the state. These two words constitute the core of the modern Indian identity.
2. Negative Face of the Terms
But opponents provide the fact that these words are politically charged terms, which were brought on little debate in a period of restricted democratic freedoms. To them, the Preamble should always echo the original ideals by which they were envisioned by the Constituent Assembly.
What the Judgment Will Provide
With the court readying itself for the judgment of the Supreme Court, the pendulum swings high for very real movements. Affirmative in putting 'socialist' and 'secular' into the principle Preamble would again vindicate these ideologies as essentially bending those principles of India's identity. On the contrary, any question on their basis would reignite debates on what Preamble could do and to what extents constitutional amendments should go about their business.
Conclusion
The verdict on the 42nd Amendment has the potential to change a course in the future as a redistribution of balances between parliamentary authority and constitutional sanctity. This judgment is likely to have a huge bearing on the discourse of Indian politics and the law of the land, no matter what the result is.
Stay tuned for updates on this consequential judgment while the waiting nation seeks clarity on the constitutional legacy of 'socialism' and 'secularism.'
.png)
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.