Socialism Means Commitment To Be A Welfare State; 'Socialist' In Preamble Doesn't 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

Click here to read the judgment