Dr. Balram Singh & Others v. Union of India & Anr. (2024)

Introduction 

This Supreme Court judgment addressed constitutional validity of inserting 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble. The Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, reaffirming Parliament's amending power and clarifying that the Constitution is a living document. 

Facts 

• Two writ petitions filed challenging insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' in Preamble. 
• Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted these words on November 2, 1976. 
• Petitioners argued the amendment was retrospective and created falsity. 
• They claimed 'secular' was deliberately omitted by the Constituent Assembly. 
• Petitioners contended 'socialist' restricts economic policy choices. 
• Amendment passed during Emergency after normal Lok Sabha tenure ended. 
• Writ petitions filed in 2020, forty-four years after amendment. 

Issues 

• Whether Parliament has power under Article 368 to amend the Preamble. 
• Whether retrospective application to Constitution's adoption date is valid. 
• Whether amendments during Emergency lack legitimacy. 
• Whether 'socialist' unconstitutionally restricts economic policies. 
• Whether petitions filed 44 years later can be entertained. 

Court's Observations 

Former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that: 

• Article 368 unquestionably grants Parliament power to amend the Constitution, including Preamble. 
• Rejected retrospectivity argument - date of adoption doesn't curtail Parliament's amendment power. 
• The Constitution is a living document allowing evolution through Article 368. 
• India developed own interpretation of secularism - State treats all faiths equally. 
• Multiple Constitution Bench judgments recognize secularism as basic feature. 
• 'Socialism' denotes welfare State commitment, doesn't restrict private entrepreneurship. 
• India embraces mixed economy where private sector flourishes alongside public sector. 
• Filing petitions 44 years after amendment, when terms achieved widespread acceptance, is questionable. 
• Additions to Preamble haven't restricted government policies within constitutional bounds. 

Court's Ruling: 

• Dismissed both writ petitions finding no legitimate cause after 44 years. 
• Held circumstances don't warrant issuing notice as constitutional position remains unambiguous. 
• Upheld validity of Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. 
• All pending applications were dismissed. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment reinforces that the Constitution is a living document capable of evolution through Article 368. The Court's dismissal establishes Parliament's amending power extends to all Constitution parts, including Preamble, subject to basic structure doctrine. The judgment provides authoritative guidance on Indian secularism and socialism while emphasizing constitutional stability and proper amendment processes.