By Dipak Kurmi
India stands at a constitutional crossroad, grappling with the legacy of its most controversial amendment—the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976. This debate has resurfaced with renewed intensity following recent remarks by RSS Sarkaryawah (General Secretary) Dattatreya Hosabale, who has called for a national discussion on the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. His call touches a raw nerve in India’s constitutional history, one that has stirred both ideological and legal battles for decades.
The backdrop to this controversy is the Emergency period (1975–77), imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which remains one of the most criticized chapters in India’s democratic evolution. Declared on June 25, 1975, citing internal disturbances, the Emergency witnessed the suspension of civil liberties, censorship of the press, mass arrests of political opponents, and the systematic weakening of the judiciary. Amid this climate of political repression, Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment on December 18, 1976—an act critics widely regard as a constitutional overreach executed under duress.
Often referred to as the “Mini-Constitution,” the 42nd Amendment introduced sweeping changes. It curtailed individual freedoms, expanded the scope of Directive Principles of State Policy, diluted judicial review, and most notably, altered the Constitution’s Preamble. Before the amendment, India was defined as a “Sovereign Democratic Republic.” Afterward, it became a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.” The addition of the words “socialist” and “secular,” along with “integrity,” fundamentally shifted India’s constitutional self-definition.
The ideological motivations behind these insertions were clear. For Indira Gandhi, embedding the term “socialist” was consistent with her populist agenda and her political slogan of “Garibi Hatao” (Eradicate Poverty). Her government, during the Emergency, was engaged in a spree of nationalization and welfare-oriented policy making, but without adopting the Soviet model of centralized economic control. Still, the constitutionalization of socialism reflected her intent to give state-led economic redistribution permanent legal sanctity.
The insertion of the term “secular” was equally politically loaded. Although India’s constitutional philosophy already embodied religious neutrality through Articles 25 to 28, Gandhi’s regime sought to make this identity overt. Facing rising communal tensions and seeking to counter Hindu nationalist narratives, the government chose to etch secularism formally into the Preamble. This move was seen by many as an attempt to claim moral high ground during a period marked by rampant political oppression.
This was not the first time these terms had been debated. The Constituent Assembly had, on multiple occasions, considered including “socialist” and “secular” in the original Preamble but rejected these proposals after lengthy discussions. On November 15, 1948, K.T. Shah proposed including these words, but Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed it, asserting that the Constitution should avoid locking future generations into fixed ideological molds. Similar proposals on November 25 and December 3, 1948, also met with rejection. Ambedkar and other framers believed that while the Constitution should guarantee fundamental rights and religious freedom, it need not enshrine ideological labels that could limit India’s democratic flexibility.
This historical context forms the cornerstone of the RSS’s argument today. Hosabale and other Sangh leaders argue that the inclusion of these terms was a political act carried out when democracy was suspended and cannot be seen as an expression of the people’s will. The RSS contends that this Emergency-era alteration is an aberration from the original constitutional vision. Hosabale has even suggested that the Congress should formally apologize for this constitutional distortion, emphasizing that the original draft, as envisioned by Ambedkar and the framers, never intended such ideological fixity.
Yet, reversing the 42nd Amendment is far from simple. The Supreme Court, through landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980), has articulated the Basic Structure Doctrine, which places certain features of the Constitution beyond the reach of parliamentary amendment. Both secularism and socialism have been judicially recognized as part of this Basic Structure. In Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of these words, viewing them as intrinsic to the Constitution’s spirit. Although Minerva Mills came just four years after the Emergency, critics argue that the Court then lacked the temporal distance to reassess the Amendment’s democratic legitimacy fully.
The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India further reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Preamble under Article 368, as long as the amendment does not violate the Basic Structure. The Court clarified that Indian socialism does not mirror totalitarian models like that of the Soviet Union but represents a welfare-state vision compatible with private enterprise. Similarly, Indian secularism, the Court observed, reflects equal respect for all religions, without adopting a strictly Western model of church-state separation.
Supporters of the 42nd Amendment argue that the inclusion of these terms only made explicit what was already implicit in the Constitution’s provisions. The original document contained numerous references to social and economic justice and protected religious freedom through enforceable rights. Articles 14 to 30 cover equality, non-discrimination, freedom of religion, and minority rights. The Directive Principles of State Policy also enshrined the government’s responsibility toward social welfare and equitable distribution of resources. For these advocates, the Emergency-era amendment simply codified the philosophical essence already present in the Constitution.
On the other hand, critics continue to assert that the procedural context of the amendment—passed in a Parliament stripped of opposition, amid press censorship and a paralyzed judiciary—renders it morally and democratically questionable. They point out that the Janata government, which came to power after the Emergency, did roll back several Emergency-era laws through the 43rd and 44th Amendments. However, interestingly, it chose not to touch the Preamble, leaving the altered definition of India intact.
The political stakes surrounding this debate remain high. For the RSS and its political affiliate, the BJP, the demand for deletion aligns with their broader vision of constitutional renewal and decolonization of India’s legal and institutional frameworks. They argue that terms imposed during a period of autocracy should not define a democratic India’s foundational identity.
Conversely, the Congress and many other opposition parties view any attempt to remove “socialist” and “secular” as an attack on India’s inclusive and pluralist character. For them, the presence of these words symbolizes India’s commitment to social justice and religious harmony. They fear that removing them could embolden majoritarian politics and undermine constitutional safeguards for minorities.
Legally, any effort to excise these words would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368. This involves securing a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of India’s states. Given the polarized political landscape and the entrenched legal position of secularism and socialism as elements of the Basic Structure, such an amendment faces formidable obstacles.
Beyond legal and political hurdles, there is also the challenge of public perception. While the procedural illegitimacy of the 42nd Amendment is undeniable, any move to revise the Preamble may trigger fears about weakening constitutional safeguards for minorities and the poor. Civil society groups, constitutional scholars, and the broader legal fraternity are likely to resist any such change vigorously.
Ultimately, the debate over the Emergency-era amendments is less about semantics and more about national identity, historical memory, and the evolving nature of Indian democracy. The RSS’s call for a national debate provides an opportunity for India to introspect on the values it wants its Constitution to reflect in the 21st century. Should India continue with labels inserted during an authoritarian phase, or should it recalibrate its constitutional self-definition through democratic consensus and legislative propriety?
Yet, amid this heated discourse, one truth remains clear: the strength of a democracy is not measured merely by the words inscribed in its founding documents but by the manner in which it lives out the principles those words represent. Whether “socialist” and “secular” remain in the Preamble or are removed, the real test will be whether India continues to uphold equality, liberty, and justice for all its citizens, true to the spirit envisioned by the Constitution’s framers.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
