Supreme Court Questions Amendment to Preamble Without Changing Adoption Date
Updated On : February 14, 2024
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has raised a pivotal question regarding the feasibility of amending the Constitution's preamble without changing its original date of adoption. This inquiry emerged during the hearing of a petition challenging the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, which incorporated the terms "socialist" and "secular" into the preamble's description of India.
The bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, addressed this question while reviewing the petition filed by former Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, Subramanian Swamy. Swamy's plea seeks the removal of the words "socialist" and "secular" from the preamble, arguing that they were unjustly added during the emergency period through the 42nd Amendment.
The court's inquiry centered on the unique characteristic of the Constitution's preamble that specifies a particular adoption date, prompting a broader discussion on whether amendments could proceed without altering this historical marker. Justice Dipankar Datta called for a conceptual consideration of this matter by the parties involved.
Scheduled for further deliberation and hearing in the last week of April, this case has attracted widespread attention for its potential implications on the interpretation of the Constitution of India. It challenges not only the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the preamble but also contests provisions of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, which mandates political parties to commit to secularism for registration.
Opposition to Swamy's plea comes from Binoy Vishwam, a member of the Rajya Sabha, who argues that the petition constitutes an abuse of legal procedures due to its lack of merit and should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court's engagement with this matter signals a crucial moment in the ongoing discourse on the constitutionality of amendments made to the preamble. It underscores the significance of this case in shaping the interpretation of the constitution, with far-reaching effects on its foundational principles.
Supreme Court Questions Amendment to Preamble Without Changing Adoption Date
February 14, 2024
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has raised a pivotal question regarding the feasibility of amending the Constitution's preamble without changing its original date of adoption. This inquiry emerged during the hearing of a petition challenging the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, which incorporated the terms "socialist" and "secular" into the preamble's description of India.
The bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, addressed this question while reviewing the petition filed by former Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, Subramanian Swamy. Swamy's plea seeks the removal of the words "socialist" and "secular" from the preamble, arguing that they were unjustly added during the emergency period through the 42nd Amendment.
The court's inquiry centered on the unique characteristic of the Constitution's preamble that specifies a particular adoption date, prompting a broader discussion on whether amendments could proceed without altering this historical marker. Justice Dipankar Datta called for a conceptual consideration of this matter by the parties involved.
Scheduled for further deliberation and hearing in the last week of April, this case has attracted widespread attention for its potential implications on the interpretation of the Constitution of India. It challenges not only the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the preamble but also contests provisions of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, which mandates political parties to commit to secularism for registration.
Opposition to Swamy's plea comes from Binoy Vishwam, a member of the Rajya Sabha, who argues that the petition constitutes an abuse of legal procedures due to its lack of merit and should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court's engagement with this matter signals a crucial moment in the ongoing discourse on the constitutionality of amendments made to the preamble. It underscores the significance of this case in shaping the interpretation of the constitution, with far-reaching effects on its foundational principles.
