Socialism Means 'Welfare State' In Indian Context: Supreme Court While Reserving Judgment In Cases Challenging Addition Of 'Socialist' And 'Secular' To Preamble
|The Supreme Court said today, while hearing a plea challenging the 42nd Amendment to include the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the preamble of the Constitution of India, said that the word Socialist in the preamble only means Welfare State in the Indian context and the existence of the said word in the preamble has not harmed private sector in the country.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar reserved its Judgment in the batch of cases after a brief hearing.
Advocate Vishnu Jain appearing for a Petitioner submitted that the Judgment of the Nine Judge Bench of Apex Court in the matter of Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. on Article 39(b) of the Constitution to say that the present issued is squared covered by the said decision.
Jain referred to the criticism in the said Judgment of an earlier Judgment authored by Justice Krishna Iyer on "economic ideology".
"Mr. Jain, we have gone through this. The amendment to the Preamble notwithstanding, this Judgment has been pronounced. The way we understand,Socialism in India is very different from the way some other economists may understand. In our context, Socialism primarily means welfare state. That's all. It has never prevented the Government, there is private sector which is thriving, doing well. We all have benefited from the private sector. Therefore why go into that? The word Socialism used over here is in a different context- It is a welfare state, number two- there should be equality of opportunity, that runs through so many Articles. So why worried on that score? Why go into all that?", the Chief Justice said.
The CJI further said that if the Court is to refer to the aforesaid recent Judgment of Nine Judges, it will also have to refer to the Judgment in SR Bommai's case which deals with the concept of Welfare State. Jain argued that since the amendment was brought during the Emergency period, people were not heard. He asked for a detailed hearing of the case.
"We have struck down so many amendments brought in that era", the CJI replied.
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that the Preamble has been amended with retrospective effect without ratification by states.
The CJI said that the power under Article 368 (to amend the Constitution) will extend to even the Preamble.
Upadhyay also submitted that the amendment has given "reverse power". The CJI said that the Court will clarify that it is not "reverse power".
A Senior Advocate then argued that the amendment was brought during the extended tenure of the Parliament. The CJI told him that the Court will not permit him to file a Written Submission on behalf of an intervenor and that he may file a separate Writ Petition if he wants.
Upadhyay then submitted that a copy of the petition has been served upon the Attorney General (AG) and the Solicitor General and that the AG should be asked to appear in the matter.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy then argued that the amendment should have come as a separate paragraph in the Preamble and that it cannot be said that these words were adopted in the year 1949.
The CJI refused to hear the matter any further and said that the Court was reserving its Judgment.
Last month, the Court had agreed to examine whether the words Secular and Socialism words Secular and Socialist should be excluded from what is covered by the sentence "In our Constituent Assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do Hereby Adopt, Enact And Give To Ourselves This Constitution", appearing in the Preamble.
Cause Title: Balram Singh And Ors. v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 645/2020]