News Desk, Kolkata : In the realm of constitutional intricacies, a question of paramount importance arose before the esteemed bench of the Supreme Court. It revolved around the possibility of amending the preamble of the constitution without altering its inception date. The genesis of this query was an application submitted to the Supreme Court, seeking the exclusion of the words “secular” and “socialist” from the preamble. Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Deepankar Datta found themselves presiding over the hearing of this pivotal matter.
The petitioner, Subramanian Swamy, a Member of Parliament and legal luminary, had filed an application to expunge the terms “secular” and “socialist” from the constitution’s preamble. Delving into the heart of the matter, Justice Deepankar Datta questioned the possibility of altering the constitution’s preamble without modifying the date of adoption, stating, “In the educational sense, if the preamble of the constitution mentions a date, can any other word be changed or modified without changing the date? If there is no issue, then amendments can be made to the constitution’s preamble without altering the date. There is no problem in that.”
Responding to this pivotal question, Subramanian Swamy remarked, “This is the question.”Justice Datta further elaborated, “Our constitution’s preamble is the only proposal I’ve seen where the date is mentioned. Previously, the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were not present in the constitution.”
Legal luminary Vishnu Shankar Jain added insights, stating that since the preamble of the Indian Constitution mentions a date, it is not possible to make changes without a discussion. Interrupting him, Subramanian Swamy pointed out, “During the state of emergency (1975-77), the 42nd amendment was passed.”
The Supreme Court bench emphasized the need for a thorough discussion on this matter. Subsequently, on April 29, two petitions challenging changes to the constitution’s preamble were scheduled for hearing.
Notably, the terms “socialist” and “secular” were absent in the original text of the constitution. It was only in 1976, during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, that the 42nd amendment incorporated these terms. The preamble was transformed from “sovereign, democratic republic” to “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.”
This alteration sparked a challenge by Subramanian Swamy, who asserted that the preamble could not be amended, modified, or omitted.
As the legal saga unfolded, the question of whether the constitution’s preamble could undergo changes without altering the adoption date remained at the forefront. The Supreme Court’s deliberations would shape the course of constitutional interpretation.
In the ever-evolving legal landscape, the saga took an unexpected turn. Recent developments have brought two petitions challenging amendments to the constitution’s preamble before the apex court on April 29. The constitutional debate, initiated by Subramanian Swamy, gained momentum as the judiciary delved into the heart of the matter.
The constitutional timeline, dating back to November 26, 1949, seemed to hold the key to this intricate legal puzzle. Justice Deepankar Datta and his bench sought to unravel the possibilities and limitations encapsulated within the confines of the constitution’s preamble.
The petitioner’s argument hinged on the contention that the constitution’s preamble, having a specific date, presented a unique challenge. However, legal experts, including Vishnu Shankar Jain, highlighted the nuanced dynamics surrounding constitutional amendments. The discussion, resonating with the echoes of India’s constitutional evolution, delved into the historical context that led to the inclusion of “socialist” and “secular” in the preamble.
The courtroom drama unfolded against the backdrop of India’s transformative journey, from a sovereign democratic republic to a socialist, secular, and democratic republic. The 42nd amendment, a pivotal moment during the state of emergency, left an indelible mark on the constitutional narrative.
As the legal luminaries presented their arguments, the Supreme Court bench signaled the need for a comprehensive discussion on the matter. The impending hearings on April 29 promised to unravel the complexities surrounding the constitution’s preamble and the scope of amendments.
In the tapestry of legal discourse, the question of whether the constitution’s preamble could be altered without touching its foundational date echoed through the hallowed halls of justice. The judiciary, represented by Justice Deepankar Datta, stood at the forefront of deciphering this constitutional conundrum.
The unfolding narrative underscored the delicate balance between constitutional principles and the evolving needs of a dynamic society. The apex court’s forthcoming deliberations held the promise of shaping the contours of India’s constitutional identity. As the legal saga continued, the nation awaited the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the possibility of amending the constitution’s preamble while preserving its historic inception date.
DISCLAIMER
Our news media denounces any form of bias and disapproves of sensationalism. The disseminated news is entirely educational and aimed at social awareness. Our media maintains absolute impartiality, adhering solely to the purpose of education and social consciousness.
