gave The Supreme Court Friday observed that he could not repeal all legislation passed by Parliament during 1976 Emergency Only on the ground that the extended term of Parliament was intended for emergency purposes and not for amending laws or the Constitution.

These remarks were made by a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Sanjeev Khanna And Justice PV Sanjay Kumar expressed reservations about entertaining petitions challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.

“The amendment in question (the 42nd Amendment) has been subjected to a great deal of judicial review by this Court. The Legislature has interfered…Parliament has interfered. We cannot say that the Parliament at the time (emergency) which Anything done is rendered invalid,” the bench said in response to a plea that Parliament could not have amended the Preamble during the extended term of the Lok Sabha in 1976.

During the hearing on Friday, the bench pointed out that under Article 368 Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution even up to the Preamble. The Preamble is part and parcel of the Constitution. It’s not separate,” he remarked.

Read more: Supreme Court sent notice to CBI, ED on Manish Sisodia’s plea for relaxation of bail.

The court further held that the term “socialism” has a special significance in the Indian context. “In our context, socialism basically means the welfare state. That’s all. It has never stopped the private sector which is developing well. We have all benefited from it. The word socialism in a different context. is used, it means that the state is a welfare state and should stand for the welfare of the people and provide equality of opportunity,” he observed.

The hearing began in 2020 with separate petitions by former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, social activist Balram Singh and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the legality of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. The amendment, passed during Indira Gandhi’s extended tenure during the Emergency in 1976, inserted the words “socialist” and “secular” in the preamble. Before the amendment, the Preamble had described India as a “sovereign democratic republic”, but the new text read “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic”. The petitioners argue that the amendment was inconsistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, who expressly rejected the inclusion of these provisions.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who represented Singh, argued that the 1976 Parliament acted beyond its mandate, as it was incorporated during the Emergency without consulting the people. “When the preamble has a fixed date of adoption, how can words be added later?” Jain asked, claiming that the amendment distorted the original vision of the framers of the Constitution, who had deliberately rejected these provisions during the Constituent Assembly debates.

Jain also referred to a recent nine-judge bench judgment on Article 39(b) to highlight different interpretations of socialism, but CJI Khanna dismissed concerns about its inclusion. Socialism in India basically means welfare state. It has never hindered the development of the private sector,” he replied.

In an 8-1 decision on November 5, the Supreme Court set limits on the state’s power to acquire privately owned resources in order to distribute them for the common good, stating that all property that is privately owned are not obtainable but only those that meet certain criteria. To be declared as “material resource of the community”.

Advocate Upadhyay, on his part, clarified that he was not against secularism or socialism, stressing that his objection was to the “illegal” act of his induction during the Emergency. “The mandate of the people of India came to an end with the expiry of the term of the Lok Sabha on 18 March 1976, and thus there was no ‘will of the people’ when the amendments were made. The term of the Lok Sabha was extended to meet the exigencies of was extended to and the Preamble, which is the basic structure of the Constitution, was not amended,” Upadhyay argued.

Responding, the bench said it could not accept the proposition that the Emergency Parliament had no justification to amend the Constitution, adding that the 42nd Amendment has been extensively reviewed by the courts and This has been supported by subsequent legislative acts. He also stated that secularism has repeatedly been upheld as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, notably in the SR Bomai case (1994).

Swamy argued that this amendment made the Preamble inconsistent with the original adoption date of November 26, 1949. He suggested that these words should be included in a separate paragraph instead of being part of the main text.

Despite the petitioners’ insistence that the matter be referred to a larger bench for a detailed discussion, the bench rejected the request saying that a detailed order would be passed on November 25.

During the previous hearing of the matter on October 21, the bench had emphasized that the terms “secularism” and “socialism” in the Preamble should be understood in the Indian context, as distinct from their Western interpretations. He pointed out that the Indian understanding of secularism is unique, rooted in the state’s duty to respect all religions equally, rather than strict religious neutrality. On socialism, the bench said that day that socialism in India is about equality of opportunity and fair distribution of resources.