@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. By way of this writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (''PIL''), the petitioners seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2 (a) of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Forty-second Amendment Act''] by which, the expressions ''socialist'' and ''secular'' were added to the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
2. This PIL is founded on the grounds that the Parliament has no legislative competence to amend the Preamble of the Constitution and to introduce or delete therefrom any word/expression in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 368 of the Constitution of India; that the Preamble does not come within the ambit of ''any provision'' of the Constitution; and that the Preamble is a declaration of ideals which were conceived by the Constitution makers on the basis of which, the People of India adopted and gave to themselves the Constitution and the solemn declaration thus adopted on 29.11.1949 is not subject to any addition or alteration. The petitioners further submit that the addition of words ''socialist'' and ''secular'' is giving wrong impression and creating havoc in public life and in smooth functioning of the nation; and that ''socialist'' and ''secular'' concepts, which were not conceived while enacting the Preamble and adopting the Constitution, cannot be thrust upon the public.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made elaborate submissions in support of this petition and has particularly referred to several passages in the views expressed in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another , 1973 (4) SCC 225 and in one of the views expressed in Minerva Mills Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others , 1980 (3) SCC 625 Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the Constituent Assembly Debates dated 17.10.1949.
4. We find no reason to dilate further on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners because the contentions are flawed and this petition is rather an unnecessary one inasmuch as the issue sought to be raised stands concluded with the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Suffice it to say that the very same amendment of the Preamble has specifically been found by the Hon''ble Supreme Court to be in conformity with the Parliament''s power to amend the Constitution and being unexceptionable.
5. In the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court, even while ruling against validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment Act, has precisely held that the amendment to the Preamble by the same enactment was unexceptionable and stood consistently with the creed of the Constitution while giving vitality to its philosophy. In the views of the majority in Minerva Mills Ltd. (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court said, in paragraph 18, as under:
"18. The very 42nd Amendment which introduced clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 made amendments to the preamble to which no exception can be taken. Those amendments are not only within the framework of the Constitution but they give vitality to its philosophy; they afford strength and succor to its foundations. By the aforesaid amendments, what was originally described as a ''Sovereign Democratic Republic'' became a "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic" and the resolution to promote the ''unity of the nation'' was elevated into a promise to promote the "unity and integrity of the nation". These amendments furnish the most eloquent example of how the amending power can be exercised consistently with the creed of the Constitution. They offer promise of more; they do not scuttle a precious heritage."
6. In view of the above, all the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner could only be said to be redundant and unnecessary.
7. We may yet further point out that the suggestion on behalf of the petitioners that the addition of the expressions ''secular'' and ''socialist'' is anything of thrusting new or different ideals is fundamentally flawed because these principles and ideals have always been ingrained in the scheme of the Constitution of India. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others , 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the context of the expression ''socialist'', pointed out that the amendment has only made explicit of what is latent in the Constitutional Scheme.
8. In fact, even before the Forty-second Amendment Act, in one of the opinions forming majority, in Kesavananda Bharati''s case (supra), it was pointed out in paragraph 487 as under:
"487. India is a secular State in which there is no State religion. Special provisions have been made in the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and the freedom to manage religious affairs...."
9. That the concept of ''secularism'' was very much ingrained in the constitutional philosophy was also indicated in S.R. Bommai and others v. Union of India and others , 1994 (3) SCC 1 thus:
"29. Notwithstanding the fact that the words ''Socialist'' and ''Secular'' were added in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment, the concept of Secularism was very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy...."
10. Further, in the case of Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others , 1996 (3) SCC 545, the Supreme Court explained that the secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution while observing, inter alia, as under:
"25. ...Secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution as a guiding principle of State policy and action. Secularism in the positive sense is the cornerstone of an egalitarian and forward-looking society which our Constitution endeavours to establish...."
11. Yet further, in the case of Bal Patil and another v. Union of India and others , 2005 (6) SCC 690, the Hon''ble Supreme Court pointed out that the concept of secularism essentially is that ''State'' will have no religion while observing as under:
"37. ...Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nut shell, is that the "State" will have no religion. The States will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual rights of religion, faith and worship."
12. Thus, the suggestion that the concepts ''secular'' and ''socialist'' have been thrust upon by the Forty-second Amendment Act remains entirely baseless.
13. For what has been observed and indicated hereinabove, we find no reason to entertain this rather unnecessary petition.
14. The petition stands dismissed.
