Supreme Court
A hearing was held on Friday in the Supreme Court on the validity of the 42nd amendment to the Constitution. This hearing was held on the request of senior advocates Subramaniam Swamy, Vishnu Shankar Jain and others. During the hearing, the court said a judicial review had already been carried out on this issue. The court reserved its decision on this matter and said it will give its verdict on November 25.
During the hearing, the three petitioners presented their arguments before the court and raised questions about the validity of making amendments in case of emergency. On this, the Court said that it cannot be said that during the Emergency, Parliament had no power to amend or that the actions taken by it were meaningless.
What is the Preamble and the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution?
During the Emergency of 1976, Indira Gandhi’s government added the words socialist, secular and integrity to the Preamble of the 42nd Amendment. This amendment changed the word Sovereign and Democratic Republic in the Preamble to Sovereign, Socialist, Secular and Democratic Republic. These words were not in the original form of the Constitution, so the demand for their removal has been raised from time to time.
Socialism means welfare state
During the hearing, the court said that the meaning of the word socialism may differ in different parts of the world, but in India it means welfare state. Thanks to this word there are no obstacles to the development of the private sector in the country. The court also said about the word secularism that its meaning in India is different from that in other countries. Citing the 1994 SR Bommai case, the court said it was considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution and had also been clarified.
Arguments of the petitioners
During the hearing, the three petitioners presented their arguments, Vishnu Shankar Jain said that these words were added to the preamble during the Emergency without listening to the opinion of the people. Furthermore, since they were added to the Constitution after the deadline of November 26, 1949, they are not valid. He requested to send the matter to a larger court, which was rejected by the court.
Subramanian Swamy said that the only question that arises on this issue is whether we will treat it as a separate paragraph, because we cannot say that these words were adopted in 1949. He said that after accepting it, we can put a separate paragraph below the original paragraph.
Ashwini Upadhyay said that she is not against the concepts of socialism and secularism, but is opposed to the inclusion of these words in the preamble. He said that since this amendment was not approved by the state, it should be removed from the preamble.
The power of Parliament to modify
After the hearing, the court said that under Article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament has been given the power to amend the Constitution, which extends to the Preamble. The court made it clear that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and can be modified. The court also said that the question that the Lok Sabha did not have the power to make amendments in 1976 cannot be raised.
