Socialism Means Commitment To Be A Welfare State Socialist In Preamble Doesnt Mandate Any Specific Economic Policy Supreme Court-
The Supreme Court observed that the word 'Socialism' used in the Preamble of Our Constitution cannot be interpreted as restricting it to a mere economic ideology adopted by the elected government of the past.
The Court observed that instead of limiting the meaning of socialism to the choice of economic policies brought in by a democratically elected government, Socialism should be understood as "State's commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity."
"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 bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar made this observation while dismissing a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976.
The Court further held that India has embraced a mixed economy model, where the private and public sectors co-exist. Here the private sector was accepted by the Public and the Government, leading to its growth, and significant contribution to the upliftment of the marginalized and underprivileged sections.
In this context, the Court noted that " In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The word 'socialism' reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g)."
During the hearing of the petitions, the main contention raised for challenging the 42nd Amendment and the insertion of "Socialist" and "Secular" into the Preamble was that the amendment was made in 1976 during the state of Emergency without considering the will of the people and these ideologies were superimposed upon the Indian Citizens and therefore needed to be invalidated.
The Court refused to find any merit in the above argument. It was noted that the changes to the preamble made through the 42nd Amendment were upheld subsequently in the 44th Amendment with the coming of the newly elected Parliament helmed by Janata Party in1978.
The Court highlighted that during the deliberations of the 44th Amendment Act Bill, the suggestion to explain the terms 'Secular' and 'Socialist' was however rejected by the Counsel of States.
"The word 'secular' was explained as denoting a republic that upholds equal respect for all religions, while 'socialist' was characterized as representing a republic dedicated to eliminating all forms of exploitation—whether social, political, or economic. However, the said amendment as proposed to Article 366 was not accepted by the Council of States."
The Court also placed reliance on the earlier decisions in Excel Wear v. Union of India and Others where the Court held that the addition of the word socialist in the Preamble may enable the Court to lean more in favour of nationalization and State ownership of industries, yet this Court recognized private ownership of industries, which forms a large portion of the economic structure.
In the recent 9 judge constitution bench in Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Court held that the Constitution, as framed in broad terms, allows the elected government to adopt a structure for economic governance which would sub-serve the policies for which it is accountable to the electorate. Indian economy has transitioned from the dominance of public investment to the co-existence of public and private investment.
In Conclusion, the bench also observed that the challenge to the 42nd Amendment came 44 years since the insertion of the terms "Socialist' and 'Secular' into the Preamble, which reflects the widespread public acceptance of the said changes.
The fact that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, forty-four years after the words 'socialist' and 'secular' became integral to the Preamble, makes the prayers particularly questionable. This stems from the fact that these terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by “We, the people of India” without any semblance of doubt.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Details : Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2020, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020 and Ashwini Upadhyaya v. Union of India, MA 835/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/socialism-means-commitment-to-be-a-welfare-state-socialist-in-preamble-doesnt-mandate-any-specific-economic-policy-supreme-court-276244
The Supreme Court today (November 25), while dismissing the challenge to the insertion of the terms 'Secular' and 'Socialist' in the Preamble, observed that the Constitution's Preamble in its original form also reflected secular ethos even before the passing of the 42nd Amendment in 1976 which inserted these words.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976.
The Court in its order observed that at the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1949, the term Secular was not objectively defined. Yet, the original tenets as enshrined in the preamble of "equality of status and opportunity; fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice - social, economic political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, reflect this secular ethos."
The essence of Secularism can also be seen in the fundamental rights of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15 and 16 - "which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment."
The same is also found in the essence of Articles 25, 26,29,30 and 44.
"Article 25 guarantees all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, other fundamental rights, and the State's power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practices.
Article 26 extends to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, manage religious affairs, own and acquire property, and administer such property in accordance with law. Furthermore, Article 29 safeguards the distinct culture of every section of citizens, while Article 30 grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. Despite these provisions, Article 44 in the Directive Principles of State Policy permits the State to strive for a uniform civil code for its citizens."
The Country, however, over the course of years, embodied its own definition of secular, one that fit the diverse nature of India. The Court observed, "Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith."
Notably, the Court also referred to several landmark decisions which upheld secularism as part and parcel of the Preamble and Constitution. These included - Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and S R Bommai vs Union of India where the court observed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. In R C Poudyal v. Union of India , the Court elucidated that although the term 'secular' was not present in the Constitution before its insertion in the Preamble by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, secularism essentially represents the nation's commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Details : Balram Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2020, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1467/2020 and Ashwini Upadhyaya v. Union of India, MA 835/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 917
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/preambles-original-tenets-reflect-secular-ethos-secularism-part-of-constitutions-basic-structure-supreme-court-276224
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ