‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ Face Fresh Scrutiny – What It Means for India’s Future -

In June 2025, India witnessed a surge in political discourse surrounding the presence of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution. These terms, which were inserted during the Emergency via the 42nd Amendment in 1976, have again come under scrutiny, especially by leaders affiliated with the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Senior RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale reignited the debate by pointing out that these terms were not part of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s original draft and were introduced in a period of constitutional overreach. The argument suggests that their inclusion was more a product of political expediency than genuine democratic process. Hosabale called for an open discussion on whether such words—viewed as foreign to India’s civilizational ethos—should continue to define the Republic.

Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan echoed this stance, asserting that the terms are not inherently Indian. According to him, India’s traditions are rooted in inclusivity and harmony, but those ideals are better expressed through native philosophies like Sarva Dharma Sambhav (equal respect for all religions) rather than Western-imported secularism. Likewise, the concept of socialism, he argued, conflicts with a competitive economy and undermines entrepreneurship and individual initiative.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma further supported the proposal by labeling secularism as a Western imposition that has diluted the Indian ethos of pluralism. He argued that “socialism” was never part of India’s civilizational framework, and its place in the Preamble restricts free-market policymaking.

Defenders of the Preamble

However, the calls to remove these words have not gone uncontested. Legal experts, constitutional scholars, and opposition parties have vehemently opposed any such move. They argue that even if the words were added later, the principles of secularism and socialism were already inherent in the Constitution’s fundamental values.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld both terms as forming part of the “basic structure” doctrine. In landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bommai (1994), the judiciary recognized secularism as foundational to the Indian constitutional framework. Similarly, in Minerva Mills (1980), socialism was defended as intrinsic to the goals of social and economic justice enshrined in the Constitution.

Legal commentators stress that removing these terms may not alter the Constitution’s enforceable provisions but would send a regressive symbolic message. In a time of increasing religious polarization and economic inequality, their deletion may be interpreted as a weakening of India’s commitment to pluralism and welfare-driven governance.

Legal & Historical Context

When the 42nd Amendment was passed in 1976 during the Emergency, it included a range of constitutional changes. Among them was the insertion of the words “secular” and “socialist” into the Preamble. While critics label this act as authoritarian, defenders argue that it merely made explicit what was already implicit in the constitutional text and practice.

After the Emergency ended, the 44th Amendment in 1978 reversed many of the excesses of the previous regime. Notably, however, it did not remove “secular” and “socialist,” signaling a political consensus about their continued relevance.

In 2024, the Supreme Court again upheld the inclusion of these terms in the Dr. Balram Singh judgment, rejecting petitions that sought to strike them down. The Court reiterated that even if they were not originally mentioned, their philosophical and operational presence was always embedded in the Constitution.

Ideological Stakes

At its heart, the debate over “socialist” and “secular” is more than just about words. It reflects the larger ideological struggle between two visions of India—one that emphasizes cultural nationalism and traditionalism, and another that champions egalitarianism and religious neutrality.

Proponents of removal argue that India can remain pluralistic and just without relying on terminology they perceive as outdated or alien. Instead, they advocate for a model that draws from Indian traditions and civilizational continuity.

Opponents argue that the terms anchor India’s constitutional morality. Secularism, as understood in the Indian context, does not imply irreligion but equal treatment of all faiths by the State. Socialism, though less doctrinaire now, symbolizes the commitment to reducing inequality and fostering collective welfare.

Broader Reflections

Globally, debates around constitutional identity are intensifying. From the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to church-state separation to debates in Turkey and France, the questions of secularism and national character remain contentious.

In India, any attempt to remove these words would require a constitutional amendment, needing a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Such a move would likely face legal and political challenges, not to mention mass public scrutiny.

Conclusion

This latest round of debate is a reminder that constitutions are living documents—anchored in history, but evolving with time. Whether “socialist” and “secular” remain in the Preamble or not, the values they embody—equality, justice, and pluralism—will continue to shape India’s constitutional journey. The real question is not whether to retain the words, but whether the Republic will continue to uphold their spirit in practice.

Sources:

More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/

Defenders of the Preamble

Legal & Historical Context

Ideological Stakes

Broader Reflections

Conclusion

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply