DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 947, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 947 : 2024 INSC 893
Dr Balram Singh and Others  
v. 
Union of India and Another
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020)
25 November 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.]
Issue for Consideration
Writ Petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ 
and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the 
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) 
Act in 1976 – Words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble – 
Challenge to:
Held: Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the 
Constitution – The power to amend unquestionably rests with the 
Parliament – This amending power extends to the Preamble – 
The fact that the Constitution was adopted, enacted, and given 
to themselves by the people of India on the 26.11.1949, does not 
make any difference – The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict 
the power under Article 368 of the Constitution – In 1949, the term 
‘secular’ was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists 
had interpreted it as being opposed to religion – Over time, India 
has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the 
State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession 
and practice of any faith – This principle is enshrined in Articles 
14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination 
against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal
protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment – 
A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution 
Bench judgments have observed that secularism is a basic 
feature of the Constitution – In essence, the concept of secularism 
represents one of the facets of the right to equality, intricately 
woven into the basic fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme’s  
pattern – Similarly, the word ‘socialism’, in the Indian context 
should not be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of 
an elected government of the people’s choice at a given time –
948
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific 
economic policy or structure, whether left or right – Rather, 
‘socialist’ denotes the State’s commitment to be a welfare State 
and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity – India 
has consistently embraced a mixed economy model, where the 
private sector has flourished, expanded, and grown over the 
years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized 
and underprivileged sections in different ways – In the Indian 
framework, socialism embodies the principle of economic 
and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen 
is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances –  
That apart, the fact that the writ petitions were filed in the year 
2020, forty-four years after the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ 
became integral to the Preamble, makes the prayers particularly 
questionable – This stems from the fact that these terms have 
achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood 
by “We, the people of India” without any semblance of doubt – 
There is no legitimate cause or justification for challenging this 
constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 7]
Case Law Cited
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [1973] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : 
(1973) 4 SCC 225; S R Bommai v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCR 
644 : (1994) 3 SCC 1; R C Poudyal v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCR 
891 : (1994) Supp. 1
SCC 324; M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of 
India [1994] Supp. 5 SCR 1 : (1994) 6 SCC 360; Excel Wear v. 
Union of India and Others [1979] 1 SCR 1009 : (1978) 4 SCC 224; 
Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra 
and Others [2024] 11 SCR 1 : 2024 INSC 835 – followed.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Preamble; Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976; 
Socialist; Secular; Secularism; Article 368 of Constitution; Practice 
of any faith; Prohibition of discrimination against citizens on religious 
grounds; Principle of economic and social justice; Articles 14, 15, 
and 16 of the Constitution; Article 25 of the Constitution; Article 
26 of the Constitution; Article 30 of the Constitution.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
949
Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 645 of 2020
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1467 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application 
No. 835 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Petitioner-in-person.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Ashwani 
Kumar Dubey, Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav,  
Ms. Mani Munjal, Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Dr. G.V. Rao, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruchi Ranjan Rai, Prateek Kumar, Chand 
Qureshi, Santi Ranjan Das, Anindo Mukherjee, Vijay Kumar, Rahul 
Mohod, Sanjay Gyan, Keshav Dev, Mohit Yadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal, 
Abid Ali Beeran, Sriram P., Vishnu Shankar, Aditya Santosh, Ms. 
Isha Singh, Ms. Anjali Singh, Nalukettil A.S. Nair, Ms. Maneesha 
Sunil, Ms. Neha Kumari, S. Anbukrishnan, Alakh Alok Srivastava, 
Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Ujjwal Banerjee, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Writ Petition (C) No 645 of 2020 and Writ Petition (C) No 1467 of 2020
These writ petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words 
‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of 
India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976. 
The challenge is on various grounds, namely, retrospectivity of 
the insertion in 1976, resulting in falsity as the Constitution was 
adopted on the 26th day of November 1949; the word ‘secular’
was 
deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word 
‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy choice vesting 
in the elected government, which represents the will of the people. 
Besides, it is submitted that the Forty-second Amendment is vitiated 
and unconstitutional as it was ‘passed’ during the Emergency on 
November 2, 1976, after the normal tenure of the Lok Sabha that
950
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
had ended on March 18, 1976. Therefore, it is argued, that there 
was no will of the people to sanction the amendments.
2.	
The writ petitions do not require detailed adjudication as the flaws 
and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest. 
Two expressions—‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ and the word ‘integrity’ 
were inserted in the Preamble vide the Constitution (Forty-second 
Amendment) Act, 1976. These amendments were made in 1976. 
Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution. 
The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament. 
This amending power extends to the Preamble. Amendments to 
the Constitution can be challenged on various grounds, including 
violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fact that the 
Constitution was adopted, enacted, and given to themselves by 
the people of India on the 26th day of November, 1949, does not 
make any difference. The date of adoption will not curtail or restrict 
the power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The retrospectivity 
argument, if accepted, would equally apply to amendments made 
to any part of the Constitution, though the power of the Parliament 
to do so under Article 368, is incontrovertible and is not challenged.
3.	
While it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to 
include the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble, the 
Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with
power 
given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with 
Article 368. In 1949, the term ‘secular’ was considered imprecise, 
as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed 
to religion. Over time, India has developed its own interpretation 
of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor 
penalizes the profession and practice of any faith. This principle is 
enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit 
discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing 
equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment. 
The Preamble’s original tenets—equality of status and opportunity; 
fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice – social, 
economic political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith, 
and worship, reflect this secular ethos. Article 25 guarantees all 
persons equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, 
practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, 
health, other fundamental rights, and the State’s power to regulate 
secular activities associated with religious practices. Article 26 extends
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
951
Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another
to every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain 
religious and charitable institutions, manage religious affairs, own 
and acquire property, and administer such property in accordance 
with law. Furthermore, Article 29 safeguards the distinct culture 
of every section of citizens, while Article 30 grants religious and 
linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own 
educational institutions. Despite these provisions, Article 44 in the 
Directive Principles of State Policy permits the State to strive for a 
uniform civil code for its citizens.
4.	
A number of decisions of this Court, including the Constitution 
Bench judgments in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1 and 
S R Bommai vs Union of India,2 have observed that secularism 
is a basic feature of the Constitution. In R C Poudyal v. Union of 
India,3 the Court elucidated that although the term ‘secular’ was not 
present in the Constitution before its insertion in the Preamble by 
the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, secularism 
essentially represents the nation’s commitment to treat persons of all 
faiths equally and without discrimination. In M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. 
Union of India,4 this Court elaborated that the expression secularism 
in the Indian context is a term of the widest possible scope. The State 
maintains no religion of its own, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience along with the right to freely profess, practice, 
and propagate their chosen religion, and all citizens, regardless of 
their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights. However, 
the ‘secular’ nature of the State does not prevent the elimination of 
attitudes and practices derived from or connected with religion, when 
they, in the larger public interest impede development and the right 
to equality. In essence, the concept of secularism represents one 
of the facets of the right to equality, intricately woven into the basic 
fabric that depicts the constitutional scheme’s pattern.
5.	
Similarly, the word ‘socialism’, in the Indian context should not 
be interpreted as restricting the economic policies of an elected 
government of the people’s choice at a given time. Neither the 
1	
[1973] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 (13 Judges)
2	
[1994] 2 SCR 644 : (1994) 3 SCC 1 (9 Judges)
3	
[1993] 1 SCR 891 : (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324
4	
[1994] Supp. 5 SCR 1 : (1994) 6 SCC 360
952
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy 
or structure, whether left or right. Rather, ‘socialist’ denotes the 
State’s commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to 
ensuring equality of opportunity. India has consistently embraced 
a mixed economy model, where the private sector has flourished, 
expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the 
upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different 
ways. In the Indian framework, socialism embodies the principle of 
economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen 
is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances. The word 
‘socialism’ reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and 
does not restrict private entrepreneurship and the right to business 
and trade, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
6.	
The argument that the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) 
Act, 1976, should be struck down due to its enactment during the 
Emergency and the extended period of the Lok Sabha was previously 
deliberated in Parliament, during the consideration of the Constitution 
Forty-Fifth Amendment Bill, 1978. During these deliberations, the 
inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ came under scrutiny. 
Subsequently, this Bill was renumbered and called the Constitution 
Forty-Fourth Amendment Act 1978. The word ‘secular’ was explained 
as denoting a republic that
upholds equal respect for all religions, 
while ‘socialist’ was characterized as representing a republic dedicated 
to eliminating all forms of exploitation—whether social, political, or 
economic. However, the said amendment as proposed to Article 366 
was not accepted by the Council of States. No doubt, in Excel Wear 
v. Union of India and Others,5 this Court had held that the addition 
of the word socialist in the Preamble may enable the Court to lean 
more in favour of nationalization and State ownership of industries, 
yet this Court recognized private ownership of industries, which forms 
a large portion of the economic structure. The majority judgment of 
this Court in the 9-Judge Constitution Bench in Property Owners 
Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others6 has 
cleared any doubt and ambiguity, as it is held that the Constitution, 
as framed in broad terms, allows the elected government to adopt 
a structure for economic governance which would sub-serve the 
5	
[1979] 1 SCR 1009 : (1978) 4 SCC 224
6	
2024 INSC 835
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
953
Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another
policies for which it is accountable to the electorate. Indian economy 
has transitioned from the dominance of public investment to the 
co-existence of public and private investment.
7.	
The fact that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, forty-four years after 
the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ became integral to the Preamble, 
makes the prayers particularly questionable. This stems from the 
fact that these terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with 
their meanings understood by “We, the people of India” without 
any semblance of doubt. The additions to the Preamble have not 
restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected 
governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental 
and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. 
Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or justification for 
challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years. The 
circumstances do not warrant this Court’s exercise of discretion to 
undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position 
remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic 
pronouncement. This being the clear position, we do not find any 
justification or need to issue notice in the present writ petitions, and 
the same are accordingly dismissed.
8.	
Pending applications, including the applications for intervention, shall 
also stand dismissed.
Miscellaneous Application No 835 of 2024
1.	
The Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The Registry is directed 
to register the Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14904 of 2024.
2.	
In view of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020 
and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1467 of 2020, the Writ Petition shall be 
treated as dismissed. 
Result of the case: Writ Petitions dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan