38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, October 23, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Judicial activist Ashwini Upadhyay asks SC to declare amendment to Preamble as unconstitutional

By Jhanak Sharma      17 July, 2024 05:14 PM      0 Comments
Judicial activist Ashwini Upadhyay asks SC to declare amendment to Preamble as unconstitutional

Eminent legal and judicial activist Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the procedure of inserting the words "Socialist", "Secular" and "Integrity" in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976, was manifestly arbitrary, against the due process of law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Upadhyay, who in the past took up several legal fights for reforms, contended the Preamble is a statement of adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949 and therefore, can’t be changed in the original adoption statement, as it is an unalterable statement.

"However, during the black days of the emergency, the government by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act inserted "Socialist, Secular and Integrity" in Preamble without changing the adoption date and on behalf of the Constituent Assembly, which did not exist in 1976 and even without following due process of law," his plea said.

The apex court recently decided to hear the plea along with similar petitions filed by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy.

In his plea, Upadhyay stated that the Preamble can be amended as per observation of the Supreme Court in “His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr" (1973) but, looking at the very nature of the arrangement syntax of the Preamble; amendment has to be done by following due process of law and appending something which reflects the Will of the People” as represented by the Parliament and State Legislatures on a later date.

Section 2 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 whereby the expressions Socialist-Secular were purportedly inserted in the Preamble, purportedly by "We, the People of India" and purportedly by the Constituent Assembly, is the biggest fraud on the Constitution, it added.

At that time, the tenure of Lok Sabha was extended to meet the emergency requirements and not to amend the basic structure of the Constitution, it further argued.

His plea further contended when there was widespread fear and threat amongst the citizens, the Press was gagged, the Opposition members of both houses of the Parliament were jailed and democracy was totally throttled, in such circumstances, the Parliament had no authority to amend the Constitution, much less the Preamble and/or Fundamental Rights.

The plea asserted that such a substantial, factual and brazen mistake and manifest arbitrariness cannot be allowed to continuously exist in the Constitution of the largest and the oldest democracy of the world. "In fact, such a post facto alteration of the facts needs to be restored with immediate effect," it said.

Upadhyay contended the cause of action in the matter accrued on September 20. 2023, when the Constitution with original Preamble were distributed amongst the MPs in a gift bag on the opening day of the new parliament building but a few MPs publicly opposed the original Preamble.

The petitioner submitted that the Constitution makers deliberately chose to keep these concepts out of the Preamble.

On November 15, 1948, Professor KT Shah had proposed adding the words Secular, Federal and Socialist Nation, but the Constituent Assembly had rejected it after a lengthy discussion.

Again, on November 25, 1948, a second amendment was introduced and discussed on incorporating the word secular in the draft Constitution. That was also rejected.

On December 3, 1948, a third attempt was made to include secular in the Article 18 of the Constitution, which was also rejected by the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, the Supreme Court may examine how could Parliament go against the solemn declaration by the Constituent Assembly, he contended.

"Socialism and Secularism have been appreciated by some but criticised by many who have repeatedly pointed out to the foreign origins of the words," he said.

Upadhyay said in a truly secular country, all citizens irrespective of religion would be covered by a single set of laws. However, in India people of different religion beliefs are covered by different laws.

He also detailed examples like state control of temples but not of mosques and churches, different laws for majority and minority schools, subsidies for Haj but not for Amarnath Yatra to contend, "India of today is not a secular country. The policies of the Indian state are nor just un-secular but smack of blatant religious reverse-discrimination against its majority community".



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

father-of-deceased-pilot-in-ahmedabad-crash-moves-sc-for-court-monitored-probe
Trending Judiciary
Father of deceased pilot in Ahmedabad crash moves SC for court monitored probe

91-year-old father of pilot killed in Ahmedabad Air India crash moves SC seeking court-monitored probe into alleged biased and flawed investigation.

17 October, 2025 10:54 AM
child-cant-consent-to-sex-life-imprisonment-upheld-for-sexual-assault-on-minor-girl-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
Child Can’t Consent to Sex — Life Imprisonment Upheld for Sexual Assault on Minor Girl: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Madras HC upholds life imprisonment for assault on minor SC girl, reiterating that a child cannot consent to sex; school records key for age proof.

17 October, 2025 11:45 AM
sc-criticizes-casual-declaration-of-witnesses-as-hostile-upholds-conviction-under-sc-st-act
Trending Judiciary
SC Criticizes Casual Declaration of Witnesses as Hostile, Upholds Conviction under SC/ST Act [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court slams casual practice of declaring witnesses hostile; upholds life imprisonment in SC/ST Act case involving rape of minor girl.

17 October, 2025 11:55 AM
delhi-hc-quashes-22-year-old-complaint-against-advocate-reiterates-that-a-lawyers-office-is-not-a-commercial-activity
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Quashes 22-Year Old Complaint Against Advocate, Reiterates That A Lawyer’s Office Is Not A Commercial Activity [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC quashes 22-year-old complaint against advocate, rules that a lawyer’s office is not a commercial activity under MDP 2001 and Building Bye-Laws.

17 October, 2025 01:42 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email