Tracing the Supreme Court’s reading of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Constitution

In recent weeks, there’s been a renewed political pushback against the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution. One side argues that they were never meant to be there. The other says they’re central to what India stands for.

Petitions have already been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a rethink on the inclusion of these words, and politicians are even calling for the Preamble to go back to its original 1950 version.

It’s not the first time these words have sparked debate, but with legal challenges pending and public rhetoric heating up, the spotlight is firmly back on what the Constitution actually says, and how the Supreme Court has read those two words over the years.

But first, we take a look at what our Constitution framers said.

The Constituent Assembly did take up the question of whether words like ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ should appear in the Preamble. In the debates, Prof KT Shah strongly argued that India should be declared a “Secular, Federal, Socialist” republic. He repeated the proposal several times, but it did not get support and was eventually rejected.

In fact, the architect of the Constitution Dr BR Ambedkar himself explained that the Constitution was not meant to lock the country into a single ideology. On November 15, 1948, responding to Shah’s insistence on including socialism, Ambedkar said:

“The Constitution is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a credo or a catechism.”

Dr Ambedkar had made it clear that the Constitution already reflected certain values through its provisions. According to him, the task of deciding which economic system the country should follow belonged to Parliament.

The words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ did not appear in the original text of the Constitution adopted in 1950. They were inserted into the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which was brought in during the Emergency, and came into effect on January 3, 1977. The official note explaining the amendment claimed that the two terms were already part of the Constitution’s spirit and needed to be expressly stated. In Parliament, the amendment was passed with little discussion -particularly in the Rajya Sabha, where there was no detailed debate. Since then, these additions have remained legally intact, but politically contentious.

The Kesavananda ruling: Where the Court drew the line

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was delivered three years before the 42nd Amendment came into force. But it’s impossible to talk about the Preamble without going back to this case. This was the first time the Court held that the Constitution has a “basic structure” that Parliament can’t touch, even through amendment.

The ruling didn’t deal with “socialist” or “secular” as they weren’t part of the Preamble yet. But the Court made it clear that ideas like liberty, equality, and fraternity flowed from the Preamble and couldn’t be diluted by legislative will. This principle would later become crucial when the 1976 amendment was challenged.

Minerva Mills: The Court defines the contours of socialist

In 1980, the Supreme Court delivered what remains the most significant ruling on the amended Preamble. In Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India, the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave Directive Principles a higher status than Fundamental Rights.

But when it came to the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’, the Court took a different view. It didn’t see them as new ideas. Instead, it held that these terms were already part of the Constitution’s broader values; the amendment just made them more visible. Then Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, writing for the majority, made it clear that Indian socialism wasn’t about rigid ideology. It was about creating a fairer social order, something the Directive Principles had always aimed to achieve.

"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."

How the Court has looked at ‘socialist’ over the years

The word “socialist” found its way into a range of judgments after the Preamble was amended in 1976. In DS Nakara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded pension benefits for government employees. The Bench said that the idea of socialism meant the state couldn’t ignore the dignity of retired workers. It called socialism an “attitude of mind”, one that leans toward fairness and distribution. It held,

"Socialism is a much misunderstood word. Values determine contemporary socialism pure and simple...The principal aim of a socialist State is to eliminate inequality in income and status and standards of life." 

In Excel Wear v. Union of India, while striking down parts of the Industrial Disputes Act for being too restrictive, the Court said that the ideals of socialism can't override individual freedom. The judges said that while the law must be shaped by social goals, it can’t go so far as to take away basic rights under Article 19(1)(g), which protects the freedom to do business.

How the Court has looked at secularism over time

In SR Bommai v. Union of India, a nine-judge Bench ruled that secularism was part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The judgment said that if a state government acts against secular values, it can be dismissed under Article 356. In fact, the Court made an interesting observation on the Babri Masjid demolition which resonates even today:

"It was facile thereafter to contend that the party (BJP) only wanted to follow the constitutional means to pursue the goal of constructing the Ram Temple on the said site. The destruction of mosque was a concrete proof of the creed which the party in question wanted to pursue. In such circumstances, the Ministries formed by the said party could not be trusted to follow the objective of secularism which was part of the basic structure of the Constitution and also the soul of the Constitution."

In 2002, the Court was asked to look whether the curriculum prescribed by the NCERT was anti-secular. That case - Aruna Roy v. Union of India - ended with the Court saying such a curriculum was allowed, as long as it didn’t promote any one faith. It also discussed the relationship between moral values and secularism.

"None can also dispute that in secular society, moral values are of utmost importance. Society where there are no moral values, there would neither be social order nor secularism."

In Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, the issue was whether religious places enjoy blanket protection under the Constitution. The Court said no. It upheld the acquisition of the Babri Masjid site, noting that unless a place is essential to the practice of religion, it doesn’t automatically get constitutional shelter.

And then there was Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. Three schoolchildren were expelled because they didn’t sing the national anthem, as their faith didn’t allow it. The Court stepped in and reversed that decision, saying both Articles 19 and 25 protected their right to stand aside. The ruling stood as a reminder that secularism also means defending minority beliefs from state interference.

A case filed in 2020 by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay is still pending before the top court. He wants the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ taken out of the Preamble, saying they weren’t part of the original Constitution and were brought in during the Emergency without proper debate. The Court issued notice in the matter, but hasn’t taken it up for full hearing yet.

However, in 2024, a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar said that the words can have a different meaning in the Indian context.

"Socialism can also means there has to be fair opportunity for all - concept of equality. Let's not take it in a western concept. It can have some different meaning as well. Same with the word secularism."

Another plea pending was filed by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy, who stated that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that require political parties to give an undertaking to uphold secularism in order to be registered, should be struck down.

For years, the Supreme Court has referred to the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ while interpreting different parts of the Constitution. These terms have come up in cases related to pensions, elections, education and matters involving religion. The Court has not treated them as decorative words; it has relied on them while framing its reasoning.

Although the 1976 amendment is still under challenge, there has been no indication that the Court is considering a reversal. Most judgments since then have treated the two words as part of the broader constitutional values that were already present, rather than as political additions.