NEWS – The Supreme Court (SC) stated that “secularism” is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court emphasized that secularism has been deemed unamendable through various judgments.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Context of the Hearing – The SC was addressing petitions challenging the inclusion of “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Key Arguments Presented

• Core Features of the Constitution
  • Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar pointed out that secularism is central to the Constitution, as seen through the right to equality and the concept of fraternity.
• Historical Perspective on Secularism
  • The bench noted that India’s approach to secularism differs from the French model that influenced early discussions during the Constitution’s adoption.
  • They highlighted the balancing of rights as a unique aspect of India’s secular framework.
• Debate on the Term ‘Socialist’
  • The Court acknowledged that while socialism may have a Western connotation, India’s understanding and application of it differ.
  • They expressed satisfaction with India’s economic growth, despite challenges to the term’s inclusion.

Specific Claims by Petitioners

• Concerns about the 42nd Amendment
  • Advocate Jain argued that the 1976 amendment, which included the words “socialist” and “secular,” was not properly debated in Parliament.
  • Swamy contended that the Preamble’s additions were inconsistent with its original date of November 26, 1949.
• Implications for Personal Liberty
  • Jain referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s concerns that the word “socialism” could restrict personal liberty.
  • The SC highlighted the varying interpretations of socialism, suggesting it could promote equality and fair wealth distribution.

Broader Implications of the Ruling

• Potential for Future Amendments
  • Upadhyay warned that adding these words could lead to future constitutional amendments that might challenge foundational principles, such as democracy.
  • He emphasized that the inclusion of these terms might “open a Pandora’s box” regarding constitutional changes.
• Next Steps in the Hearing
  • The Court scheduled further hearings for the week of November 18.
  • Petitioners were instructed to submit relevant documents for review.

SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ON SECULARISM AND MINORITY INSTITUTIONS

• The Supreme Court addressed a challenge against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to strike down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004.
• The High Court concluded that the 2004 Act, which regulated madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, violated secularism.
• It ordered the transfer of students from recognized madrasas to regular schools, affecting approximately 17 lakh students across 16,000 madrasas.
• The Chief Justice emphasized that regulating institutions of religious or linguistic minorities does not inherently breach secularism.
• He mentioned the Hindu Religious Endowments and Charitable Institutions Act, which exists in various states to ensure the proper administration of religious institutions.
• The Chief Justice affirmed the state’s right to legislate for the improvement of government-aided minority-run institutions, emphasizing the importance of broad-based education for young children in madrasas.
• The Chief Justice pointed out that Article 30 allows minorities to establish and administer institutions beyond just religious teachings, exemplifying that institutions can teach various subjects like medicine or engineering.