RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale questions ‘socialist', ‘secular' in Preamble: Why the words were inserted in 1976

Indian Express

27-06-2025

Commemorating 50 years of the imposition of the Emergency at an event, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on Thursday (June 26) said a discussion was merited on the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution.
Hosabale said, 'The words socialist and secular were added to the Preamble [during the Emergency]. No attempt was made to remove them later. So, there should be a discussion on whether they should remain. I say this in a building (Ambedkar International Centre) named after Babasaheb Ambedkar, whose Constitution did not have these words in the Preamble.'
Multiple legal challenges have been filed over the years against the inclusion of the words. Just last year, the Supreme Court upheld them in a verdict. Here is why.
Essentially, the preamble includes the core philosophy of the Constitution and serves as an introduction to it. The Preamble of the Constitution that commenced in 1950 read:
'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.'
The description of India as a 'secular' country in particular, has been debated intensely over the past four decades; with critics, mostly on the Right, claiming that these 'imposed' terms sanction 'pseudo-secularism', 'vote-bank politics' and 'minority appeasement'.
The words were added by The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, during the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Imposing the Emergency under Article 352 allowed her government to curb civil liberties and centralise power.
Let's look at the word 'socialist' first. Over her years in government, Gandhi had attempted to cement her approval among the masses on the basis of a socialist and pro-poor image with slogans such as 'garibi hatao' (Eradicate poverty). Her Emergency government inserted the word in the Preamble to underline that socialism was a goal and philosophy of the Indian state.
It needs to be stressed, however, that the socialism envisaged by the Indian state was not the socialism of the USSR or China of the time — it did not envisage the nationalisation of all of India's means of production. Gandhi herself clarified that 'we have our own brand of socialism', under which 'we will nationalise [only] the sectors where we feel the necessity'. She underlined that 'just nationalisation is not our type of socialism'.
The people of India profess numerous faiths, and their unity and fraternity, notwithstanding the differences in religious beliefs, were sought to be achieved by enshrining the ideal of 'secularism' in the Preamble.
In essence, this means that the state protects all religions equally, maintains neutrality and impartiality towards all religions, and does not uphold any one religion as a 'state religion'.
A secular Indian state was founded on the idea that it is concerned with the relationship between humans, and not between human beings and God, which is a matter of individual choice and individual conscience. Secularism in the Indian Constitution, therefore, is not a question of religious sentiment, but a question of law.
The secular nature of the Indian state is secured by Articles 25-28, part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Yes, in essence, it was always a part of the philosophy of the Constitution. The founders of the Indian Republic adopted Articles 25, 26, and 27 with the explicit intention of furthering and promoting the philosophy of secularism in the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment only formally inserted the word into the Constitution and made explicit what was already implicit.
In fact, the Constituent Assembly specifically discussed the inclusion of these words in the Preamble, and decided not to do so.
After members such as K T Shah and Brajeshwar Prasad raised the demand to add these words to the preamble, Dr B R Ambedkar put forward the following argument: 'What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself because that is destroying democracy altogether.'
What was the Supreme Court case?
In July 2020, a Supreme Court advocate by the name of Dr. Balram Singh filed a petition challenging the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution. Later, former Law Minister Subramaniam Swamy and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay also filed petitions with similar challenges.
The court rejected these arguments in a short, seven-page order in November 2024, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna and P V Sanjay Kumar noting that 'the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest.'
When the Constitution was being drafted, the court noted that the meaning of the word secular was 'considered imprecise' as some scholars (particularly in the West) had interpreted secularism as being opposed to religion. With time though, the court held that 'India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith'. The ideals espoused in the Preamble — fraternity, equality, individual dignity and liberty among others — 'reflect this secular ethos', the court held.
Similarly, the court held that the word socialism has also evolved to have a unique meaning in India. It held that socialism refers to '(the) principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances' and does not necessitate restrictions on the private sector which has 'flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways'. Finally, it held that there was no justification for challenging the 42nd amendment nearly 44 years after its enactment.
This explainer draws upon previous explainers published in 2024 and 2022.