Socialist & Secular Preamble: Emergency’s Lasting Echoes in the Indian Constitution

Authored by Shruti Udayan, a 2nd-year law student at National Law University, Jodhpur

A Constitution is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of Life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.

— B.R. Ambedkar

And yet, what if the ‘spirit of the age’ is totalitarianism?

This becomes a defining question when we revisit the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, during one of the darkest moments in Indian democracy —the Emergency. Amongst its numerous sweeping reforms, this Amendment added the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ into the Preamble. What, on the face of it, seems like an innocuous reiteration of national values is actually a disconcerting constitutional intrusion whose legitimacy, process, and democratic standing need to be thoroughly examined.

The Historical Context: An Unfree Climate of Constitutional Change

From June 1975 to March 1977, India lived under a state of Emergency proclaimed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi after the Allahabad High Court had declared her election invalid in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain. During this period of National Emergency, the fundamental rights were suspended, censorship was imposed on the press and mass detentions without trial were carried out by the draconian MISA, while Parliament existed as a rubber stamp for diktats of the executive.

In this repressive environment, the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976,  was enacted. Along with other far-reaching modifications, it modified the Preamble to transform India from a “Sovereign Democratic Republic” into a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic”. The circumstances and manner in which this amendment was made arouse grave constitutional and democratic doubts.

Preamble: ‘The travesty of justice” is amendable or not?

Preamble is the basis on which the Constitution has grown. It is the soul of the Constitution, but a few amendments were made during the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976. The Preamble was deemed to be sacrosanct, with questions about whether it could ever be amended. In the Berubari Union Case (1960), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution and therefore not amendable under Article 368. This view was overturned by a larger Bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), wherein the Court held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and notably embodies the basic structure of the Constitution.

The irony is rich: Kesavananda Bharati had protected the Constitution’s fundamentals by placing restrictions on the amending power of the Parliament. And yet, three years down the line, the same Parliament, operating in the name of Emergency, caused aberrations and amended the Preamble itself without any Constituent Assembly-type consultation, debates, public discourse or judicial scrutiny.

The Democratic Deficit: No Debate, No Consensus 

One of the most glaring faults of the 42nd Amendment is the total lack of serious parliamentary or public debate on the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular.” Now, while comparing this with the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD), during the drafting of the Preamble, members such as K.T. Shah moved the insertion of the word ‘Secular’. His suggestion was rejected explicitly by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who replied: “The Constitution... does not recognise, it does not permit, mixing up religion and State. This is the secular character of the State, and it is a matter of principle that is understood… it is unnecessary to state it in the Preamble”. 

Likewise, the name ‘Socialist’ was never embraced in the Preamble by the initial framers, although the Directive Principles such as Article 39(b)-(c) did incorporate some socialist objectives. Ambedkar once more warned against ideological absolutism: “What should be the policy of the State... should be decided by the people according to time and circumstances.” This renders the 1976 amendment ideologically flawed, as it inscribes ideals that the framers discussed and deliberately left out.

The Problem with ‘Socialist’: Ideological Straitjacketing

The word ‘Socialist’ is both charged and vague, and its significance has changed significantly in the post-Soviet, global world. Added to the Preamble in 1976, it was not entirely clear what type of socialism was meant —whether state control of industries, Nehruvian socialism, or merely a guarantee of welfare measures. By incorporating ‘Socialist’ into the Constitution’s initial text, future economic policy was effectively sealed within a specific ideological framework, one that the initial framers of the Constitution had purposefully avoided. India’s experience adds complexity to the idea of ‘socialist.’ While following a non-aligned path, India chose not to connect with the Soviet bloc or its strict model of state socialism. Instead, Indian socialism was mainly influenced by Nehru’s vision of a mixed economy. This approach combined strategic state control over important industries with support for private businesses. The goal was to strike a balance between growth and social justice. This ideological insertion is not good for several reasons: constitutions should pragmatically provide room for policy manoeuvre, particularly regarding economics, as opposed to hardening a specific ideology into the document. Furthermore, the existence of such an ideological label can influence court interpretations of legislation and policy, thereby limiting Parliament's ability to innovate and evolve. Such concerns have led to contradictory legal interpretations, as exemplified in cases such as J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), where socialist principles were used to defend state-provided education as an essential right, despite resource constraints.

The Problem with ‘Secular’: Semantic Overreach

Secularism in Indian terms has always been contextual and not doctrinaire, with the Indian model standing apart from the Western “wall of separation” posture by underlining principled distance and equal respect for all religions. The meaning of ‘secular’ has been widely debated. From an international perspective, secularism is often viewed as a strict separation between religion and state, as exemplified by the American and French models. In India, however, secularism has developed differently. It reflects a principle of equal respect for all religions, rather than absolute separation. This unique interpretation has created both strengths and challenges. Courts and policymakers have often struggled to balance religious freedom with state neutrality. However, by incorporating the term ‘Secular’ in the Preamble, the risk of inviting a monolithic, rigid, and imported interpretation of secularism was run, which is inconsistent with India’s pluralistic ethos. This has caused judicial uncertainty regarding its significance and application. For example, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court rightly established secularism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but sometimes applied a narrow framework that was in contradiction with India's historically accommodative stance. In contrast, in Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002), the Court reaffirmed that Indian secularism is not atheistic and allows for a positive engagement with religion, for example, through moral education. Ultimately, this tension between textual constancy and cultural variability could have been avoided if the Constitution had not been amended.

Procedural Flaws: Was It Really the Will of the People?

Article 368 stipulates that amendments to the Constitution have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both Houses. But when the Emergency came, opposition members were imprisoned, press freedom was abrogated, and Parliament was run under terror. Is it possible that such an amendment, so approved during an era of authoritarian consolidation, represents the will of the people? The Basic Structure doctrine, as developed in Kesavananda Bharati, is intended to safeguard the Constitution from such perversions. Plausibly, the Preamble amendment, especially when it inserted text that reconstructed the very essence of the country, trespassed on the basic structure. The Supreme Court has never formally ruled on the constitutional validity of the Preamble amendment, possibly due to its symbolic status. But why should symbols be irrelevant in a constitutional democracy?

Conclusion: The Need for Reconsideration, Not Reverence

The addition of “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency was not symbolic; instead, it was a political move, made at a moment of suspended democracy, unconsulted, and contrary to the intent of the original framers of the Constitution.

This is not a plea against welfare economics or secularism, both of which are essential for India. It is, however, a plea against constitutional hypocrisy, ideological rigidity and undemocratic approaches. If we are to really respect the Constitution, perhaps it’s time to restore the Preamble as it was imagined in 1950—a preamble of aspiration, not imposition.