8. Institutional Ethics and Constitutional Symbolism

d. Validity of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in Preamble

Notes for Students

Context of the Article:  In Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble, rejecting petitions that challenged their insertion through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. The judgment reaffirmed Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368 and the evolving nature of constitutional values in India.

UPSC Paper Topic Belongs To:
GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Preamble, Amendments, Basic Structure
GS Paper IV – Ethics in Governance: Constitutional Morality, Democratic Values
Essay – Constitutionalism, Justice, Liberty and Democratic Evolution

Dimensions of the Article:

1. The Role of the Preamble as a Symbolic and Normative Document
2. Powers of Parliament under Article 368 and Basic Structure Doctrine
3. Evolution of “Secular” and “Socialist” in Indian Political-Ethical Discourse
4. Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Morality
5. Public Trust, Institutional Ethics and Symbolic Continuity in Governance

Why in News

In December 2024, a Supreme Court bench dismissed writ petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution, added through the 42nd Amendment (1976) during the Emergency era. The petitions argued that these additions were not part of the Constituent Assembly’s original vision and lacked popular mandate. The Court ruled that Parliament possesses amending powers under Article 368, which extends to the Preamble, provided the amendment does not violate the basic structure.

Features of the News

1. About the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976):
   1. Known as the “Mini Constitution”, it brought wide-ranging changes:
      • Inserted “Socialist”, “Secular”, and “Integrity” into the Preamble.
      • Shifted subjects like Education, Forests, and Justice from the State List to the Concurrent List.
      • Introduced Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) and Part XIV-A (Administrative Tribunals).
      • Amended Articles 39, 39A, 43A, and 48A to reflect welfare and environmental goals under the DPSPs.
        
2. Petitioners’ Argument:
   1. The Preamble’s adoption date (26 November 1949) fixed its contents permanently.
   2. Additions like “socialist” and “secular” post-Emergency reflected political opportunism, not constitutional consensus.
      
3. Supreme Court’s Observations:
   1. Article 368 empowers Parliament to “add, vary or repeal” any provision, including the Preamble.
   2. The Constitution is a living document, capable of evolving with changing societal needs.
   3. The insertion of “secular” and “socialist” did not alter the basic structure but rather reaffirmed it.
      
4. Judicial Definitions Revisited:
   1. Secularism: Reflects equal respect for all religions and state neutrality.
      • Affirmed in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bommai (1994) as part of the basic structure.
   2. Socialism: Implies commitment to equitable development, social justice, and welfare state principles.
      
5. Constitutional Symbolism and Institutional Ethics:
   1. The inclusion of these terms reinforces institutional ethics, guiding state policy in line with the Preamble’s moral vision.
   2. Symbolically, it consolidates India’s identity as a pluralistic, welfare-driven republic committed to the ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Explainers

1. Why is the Preamble more than symbolic?

The Preamble is often regarded as the soul of the Constitution. While it is not justiciable—meaning it cannot be enforced directly in courts—it is far more than a ceremonial introduction. It serves as a philosophical compass that guides the interpretation of constitutional provisions and reflects the ethical intentions of the framers.

The inclusion of words like “socialist” and “secular”, even though added later, align with the existing constitutional ethos reflected in Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV). For example:

• Article 14 (equality before law),
• Article 21 (right to life with dignity), and
• Articles 38, 39, 39A (socio-economic justice and equality of opportunity)

These provisions manifest the principles of secularism and socialism, which the Preamble succinctly encapsulates.

Courts have repeatedly used the Preamble to resolve constitutional ambiguities. In Berubari Union Case (1960) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble can be used to interpret unclear provisions and understand the intent of the Constitution-makers.

Hence, the Preamble holds both symbolic resonance and interpretive authority, making it a living ethical and legal guide.

2. Does Article 368 allow amending the Preamble?

Yes. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution provides Parliament with the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Preamble. This was settled in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that:

• Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 includes the Preamble,
• But no amendment can alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

Thus, the 42nd Amendment (1976) which added the terms “socialist” and “secular” was valid as long as these additions did not contradict the basic structure. Instead, these terms were found to reinforce the existing structure rooted in justice, equality, and democracy.

Moreover, the Court in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2024) rightly noted that the adoption date of the Constitution (26th November 1949) does not restrict Parliament’s power to evolve constitutional expressions through formal amendment.

Therefore, the amending power is dynamic but subject to institutional self-restraint and constitutional morality.

3. Why do constitutional values evolve over time?

A rigid Constitution risks becoming irrelevant in a changing society. The Indian Constitution is consciously designed to be a living document, responsive to emerging realities, changing values, and democratic aspirations.

Constitutional values evolve through:

• Judicial interpretation (e.g., expansion of Article 21),
• Legislative refinement, and
• Societal mobilisation.

Cases like:

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – recognised LGBTQ+ rights,
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – decriminalised adultery, and
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – struck down instant triple talaq,

demonstrate the judiciary’s role in updating constitutional morality in tune with evolving societal norms.

In this context, terms like “secular” and “socialist” reflect not transient ideologies but permanent ethical commitments to pluralism, social justice, and inclusion—core to India’s postcolonial democratic project.

Hence, the Constitution adapts while staying faithful to its foundational values.

4. How does this judgment relate to Institutional Ethics?

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Balram Singh (2024) is a testament to institutional ethics, which demands that public institutions function with integrity, fidelity to constitutional values, and commitment to justice.

By upholding the inclusion of “socialist” and “secular”:

• The Court preserved the moral continuity of constitutional interpretation,
• Resisted political revisionism that could dilute democratic pluralism, and
• Affirmed its role as guardian of the Constitution’s ethical soul.

This aligns with the principle of constitutional morality, a concept that mandates ethical governance based on liberty, equality, and fraternity—even when these values challenge political convenience.

It reinforces that institutions must be custodians of democratic values, not instruments of partisan interests. Upholding symbolic constitutional expressions like “secular” and “socialist” strengthens public trust and ensures that the spirit of the Constitution continues to inspire generations.

Conclusion 

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India offers a timely reaffirmation of India’s constitutional ethos. In an era of political polarisation and contested narratives around nationhood, the Court’s stand reflects both legal clarity and ethical conviction. The inclusion of “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble is not an aberration, but a constitutional consolidation of India’s pluralistic, welfare-oriented democratic identity.

As the Constitution turns 75, this judgment also echoes B.R. Ambedkar’s vision: political democracy must be rooted in social justice, economic equity, and moral responsibility. The vigilance of the judiciary, the maturity of the legislature, and the awareness of citizens must work in tandem to protect these symbolic and substantive commitments.