Highlights
- The arguments made in the Apex Court by the petitioners in the matter of Balram Singh v. Union of India cannot easily be brushed aside
- While true secularism has become the desideratum of the day in India, the unfettered powers of the state to regulate religion render it difficult to ensure the adoption of secular principles. There are three pristine versions of secularism. Apparently, none of these exists in India
- Whether the use of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the preamble will endure or not will continue to be a matter of acrimonious debate
The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India 1976, sometimes referred to as the mini-constitution, promised to create legal frameworks and political institutions that would promote the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law. It attempted to remedy the gaps that were created either by constitutional silence or (mis)interpretation of the laws.
The Amendment revisited and remedied various provisions of the Indian Constitution, including the Preamble, the fundamental rights, the directive principles, election of the head of the Executive, disqualification of membership, operation of laws, passing of bills, and dismissal and removal of civil servants, etc. It tried to introduce sweeping changes when India was passing through a very difficult time due to the 1975 Emergency.
Not everything the Amendment promised to achieve was easy, especially the avowal to reify socialism and secularism by inserting the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble. These two words have been the subject of heated debates and controversies since then.
Balram Singh v. Union of India
“India is neither socialist nor secular,” This was the argument made by petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balram Singh v. Union of India. In its observation on 21st October 2024, a Division Bench of the Court tried to convince them that both socialism and secularism prevail in India, albeit in varied forms. (The matter is still sub-judice.). The Court noted that both socialism and secularism are central to the basic framework of the Constitution. By this, it tried to assert that the Constitution is a living document that has evolved beyond the limits of originalism. Be it as it may, the arguments made by the petitioners in Balram Singh’s case cannot easily be brushed aside since we have yet to fully taste the flavor of socialism or secularism in India.
Is India Socialist?
Because of the peculiar economic conditions prevailing in the country, it could never embrace socialism, though the Nehruvian economic approach resembled a kind of socialism unique to India. Arguably, the orthodox version of socialism is not practiced by any country in the world today. It stresses a system in which the means of production and distribution, including redistribution, of economic resources, are managed and controlled by the state.
The heterodox versions of socialism, on the other hand, tend to stress more liberal, evolutionary and reformist systems. Amazingly, India does not align with any of these. Theoretically, too, India could not have embraced socialism because it never experienced a laissez-faire economic system or a class struggle between the governing bourgeois and the governed proletariat.
Is India Secular?
There are three pristine versions of secularism. First is non-adherence (the state does not adhere to or endorse any religion). The second is non-interference (the state does not interfere in religious matters). The third is non-association (the state separates religion from politics). None of these prevails in India. Rather, a coagulated version of secularism informs the Indian citizenry. In this, the state not only imposes reasonable restrictions on a person’s right to preach, practice, propagate or profess his/her own religion, it also actively regulates religion.
The Constitution mentions the term secular twice, once in the Preamble and secondly in Article 25(2)(a). If any of the non-essential religious practices are found to be interfering with the religious freedom contemplated under Article 25(1), the state may regulate such practices by virtue of Article 25(2)(a). (The doctrine of essentiality was laid down by the Apex Court in Shirur Mutt’s case in 1954.)
Explanation II of Article 25(2)(b) contains the expression “The reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.” This indicates that the Constitutional schema was only meant to bridge rifts that may arise between the majority and minority religions.
Article 19 of the Draft Constitution embodied the right to freedom of religion. The debates and resolutions adopted in the Constituent Assembly in November and December of 1948 made it clear that India never wanted to become a secular state in the originalist sense. Rather, it wanted to allow secular activities essential to a particular religion.
In a sense, India wanted to promote the principle of Sarva Dharma Sambhava (treating all religions equally) without adhering to any of the standard versions of secularism. While true secularism has become the desideratum of the day in India, the unfettered powers of the state to regulate religion render it difficult to ensure the adoption of secular principles.
In sum, even if the Hon’ble Apex Court did not find merit in the plea of the petitioners in Balram Singh’s case, whether the use of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble will endure or not would continue to be a matter of acrimonious debate. The last word on this is yet to be spoken.
