3.2] Preamble of the Indian Constitution

A preamble is often an introductory statement or preliminary explanation of a statute, constitution, or other formal document. It sets forth the purpose, goals, and foundational principles of the document it represents. Preambles can be found in various legal, political, and organizational contexts. Since the Law is written in technical language and may not be easy to understand, hence preambles are attached. The custom to attach preambles with the constitution started with US constitution, first written constitution in the modern world.

In Indian context, the preamble is based on the Objectives Resolution, which was moved in the Constituent Assembly by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. It was accepted in January 1947 and eventually adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, coming into force on 26 January 1950.

1. Text of Preamble

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Note: The preamble has been amended only once in 1976 during the Emergency in India. The then Indira Gandhi government, through 42^nd Amendment of the constitution, inserted the words “socialist” and “secular“, and the phrase “unity of the Nation” was changed to “unity and integrity of the Nation”.

2. Judicial Interpretation of Preamble

In 1960 Berubari Union Case, the Supreme Court held that 1) Wherever the meaning of constitution was unclear, we can take help of the Preamble to understand the minds of the constitution makers. 2) Preamble is not a part of the Indian constitution. 3) It does not confer any substantial powers upon the legislatures or other organs of the state.

As suggested by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Indian constitution is cosmopolitan. While interpreting judiciary takes into account the legal traditions followed in different countries. In above case, it took the precedent from USA. In case of USA, Supreme Court of USA did not accept preamble as a part of the constitution.

In 1973 Keshavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court changes its earlier stand. The court held that “Preamble is an integral part of the constitution”. It further added that the “Preamble contains the ‘basic structure’ of the Indian constitution”, and “the constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble”. It was also remarked by the court that “although the elements of basic structure were not precisely defined, those mentioned in the Preamble were specifically included.”

In this case, the Supreme Court admitted that earlier it had overlooked few facts about Preamble. In the constituent assembly, the Preamble was fully discussed, duly enacted and adopted just like any other part of the constitution. And while putting Preamble to the final vote, the constituent assembly president had said “The question is that the Preamble stand part of the Constitution”. (And the motion was passed).

Significance of the Preamble

At the outset, by using the words WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, preamble declares that the source of the Indian constitution is its people.

3. Principles Mentioned in Preamble

Sovereign

Sovereignty is considered as one of the essential attributes of a State. It is the defining feature of modern nation state. Sovereignty denotes the supreme power to make law lies with the state, and it is not subject to any internal or external authority.

The use of the word Sovereign in Preamble denotes that India is no more a colony. It is independent nation with right to self-determination. In both external and internal spheres, India has freedom to make policies.

Further, unlike the United States and Australia, where the sovereignty is divided between the Union and the States, in India, there is no division of sovereignty. Although there is division of powers between centre and states, the Union can override state in national interest in emergencies as well as normal times.

Ultimately the use of words ‘We the People of India’, at the beginning of Preamble, also suggests that the sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people of India, who in themselves are the source of the constitution.

Reinterpretation of Sovereignty

The sovereignty of India, and for that matter any contemporary nation, is often brought into question because of globalization. In an interconnected and interdependent world, no singular nation enjoys supreme authority over decision making. The membership of international organizations like UN, EU, international treaties, accords etc. cast obligations and put restrictions of sovereignty. The vested economic interests and the connected commerce, also restricts the ability to states to make unilateral decisions.

However, we can also say that this weakening of sovereignty in the era of globalization, depends on the bargaining power a nation enjoys vis-à-vis other nations. For example, a country like the United States will enjoy greater sovereignty compared to a country like Bangladesh.

In case of India, we are witnessing a phenomenal increase in the power of India. India is today recognized as emerging power, an economic power, a nuclear power, and a strongest contender for permanent seat in UN security council. We’re witnessing a greater assertion of Indian sovereignty in international matters. The recent foreign policy decisions like import of Russian oil, or India’s stand on Palestine issue, are reflective of that.

Socialist

The founding fathers did not want the Indian constitution to be wedded to any particular political ideology or ism. Thus, the word ‘socialist’ was not included in the original constitution. In 42^nd Constitutional Amendment, the term was included in the preamble, reflecting the priority of erstwhile Indian government.

However, it is also to be noted that the Indian economic model always had the socialist leaning since independence. Based on the Soviet model, Indian leaders adopted a top-down, five-year plans. After British left the India, the country had large number of poor, and a redistribution of wealth was part of the state policy. Thus, we also see the socialist provisions in directive principles of state policy. The DPSPs direct the state to ensure social justice, equitable resource distribution, fair work conditions, equal pay, child welfare, free legal aid, and improved public health etc.

However, the socialist credentials of India are also questioned on the grounds that India adopted the liberalization policy in 1991. The current government policy of ‘maximum governance, minimum government’, the policy of disinvestment of public enterprises, free market competition and foreign investment, certainly indicate a shift towards liberalism in Indian polity.

We can also argue that India’s socialism is distinct from Soviet-style command economies. Indian socialism emphasizes a mixed economy where both public and private sectors coexist. It underscores the states’ responsibility to maintain key social infrastructure and to take care of the poor, and that perhaps explains India’s public distribution system, which is largest in the world. At the end, for a country of India, with huge no. of poor in the world, socialism will always remain relevant.

Secular

The exact definition of secularism, like any other concept in political science, remains contested. Encyclopedia Britannic defines secularism as ‘utilitarian ethic’, designed for the physical, spiritual and moral improvement of mankind which neither affirms nor denies the theistic premise of religion.

The concept of secularism is western in origin. It is called as ‘child of Christianity’ or ‘the product of modernity’. During the Dark Ages (medieval period) in Europe, religion, particularly Christianity, was often misused by political and religious authorities to consolidate power and control over the populace. The Church wielded significant influence, often intertwining religious dogma with governance. This led to abuses such as the Inquisition, where dissent and non-conformity were harshly punished, and the selling of indulgences, where people were made to pay for the forgiveness of sins.

These practices generated widespread discontent and criticism, contributing to major movements like the Reformation, which challenged the Church’s authority and corruption. The resultant conflicts and the desire for religious freedom fostered the development of the concept of secularism. It advocates for the separation of church and state, ensures that religious institutions do not interfere with government affairs (state sovereignty), individuals have the freedom to follow their own beliefs (freedom of conscience), and there is strict separation of personal and political spheres.

This principle of secularism became foundational in modern democracies, promoting religious tolerance and protecting civil rights.

At this point, it becomes important to understand that the Indian concept of religion is profoundly different from that of the West. India is home to a multitude of religions including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism, fostering a naturally inclusive and pluralistic approach. Unlike the predominantly monotheistic traditions in the West, Indian religious thought embraces a wide spectrum of theistic, non-theistic, and atheistic beliefs. Religion in India permeates daily life, influencing social customs, festivals, art, and community activities, and is viewed more as an integrated way of life rather than just a set of doctrines. This contrasts sharply with the role of religion in the West, where secular and religious spheres are more distinctly separated.

Consequently, the concept of secularism also needs to be understood in the Indian context. While the European secularism emerged as a response to conflict between Church and the State, that is not the case with India. Thus, Indian secularism aims to maintain equal respect and treatment for all religions rather than excluding religion from the public sphere. It balances religious freedom with state neutrality, recognizing vast religious diversity. This concept supports the idea of “sarva dharma sam-bhava” (equal respect for all religions), which differs from the Western notion of secularism that emphasizes a strict separation between church and state.

History of Indian Secularism

It is suggested that he idea of India as a secular state is a response of Congress to the demand of Pakistan by Muslim League. While Pakistan was created as a religious state, for the Muslims living in Indian subcontinent, the idea of India was a secular state, which where religion is not the basis of its formation.

As a consequence, one of the most distinctive and debatable features of Indian model is the special rights which are enjoyed by the minorities. This is also the main reason that Hindu rightist scholars like Arun Shauri and the leaders like Advani calls constitutional/congress model of secularism as a model of minority appeasement and thus ‘pseudo secular’. According to Arun Shauri, secularism is based on the equality before law, equal treatment of all citizens, which is missing in the Indian model. Indian model is a combination of western and indigenous. It often includes contradictory principles. i.e. 1) simultaneous existence of rights of an individual as well as groups 2) simultaneous existence of universal citizenship along with multi-cultural citizenship or differentiated citizenship.

Secularism in Indian Constitution

1. Fundamental rights 14,15, 16 and 17, inter-alia, prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
2. Articles 25-30 provides the religious freedom to individual as well as to religious minorities.
3. The idea of communal electorate was abolished by the constituent assembly.
4. Further, the provisions like universal adult franchise, independent judiciary and an autonomous election commission, reinforce the idea of secular India.
5. Apart from the above provisions in original constitution, secularism as a feature of Indian nationalism was made explicit by adding the word ‘secular’ in preamble by 42nd Amendment Act.

Scholarly Perspectives on Indian Secularism

Pandit Nehru saw secularism as religious neutrality. Gandhi, on the other hand understood that religion cannot be separated from life of Indians. He believed that Indian secularism would mean communal harmony based on spirit of toleration drawn from ideals of Ashoka. Thus, he described secularism as ‘sarva dharma sam-bhava’ (equal disposition towards all religions). In his own words, “those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”

Ambedkar believed that democracy is in the root of secularism. He advocated protection of minority rights, reform of Hindu institutions as a feature of Indian secularism.

De Smith started academic debate on status of India as a secular state. According to him, there are three essential features of secularism: 1) Universal citizenship / equality of status, 2) Freedom of religion, 3) separation between religion and state. According to him India has some of the features but not all. Third feature is missing.

Smith was skeptical of success of secularism in India considering 80% of population is Hindu. In his view, in such situations, minorities appear to be custodians of state. It means minorities have to be cautious of state remaining secular. Mark Galanter questions this approach of Smith and calls it ethnocentric. For Galanter, there is no point evaluating Indian state on standards of European model.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta has criticized the Indian model. For him, Indian secularism appears rational in theory, but in practice it gives scope for plausibility. It is a balancing act. It legitimizes vote bank politics, and Congress used it to placate one group or another at different times. This model in fact promotes communalism in garb of secularism and keeps all communities insecure at all times.

Ashish Nandi in his book Anti Secular Manifesto, rejects the idea of secularism calling it western. He says that instead of separating religion from state, there is need of promoting religion in public sphere, emphasizing on dialogue, imparting religious education in school to minimize politicization of religion.

T.N. Mohan is pessimistic in context of success of project of secularism in Indian society. He believes that in South Asia, religion is ‘way of life’, and any artificial attempts of separation cannot be successful.

According to Romilla Thapar, existing model a ‘faint /weak model of secularism’. India needs a bold, Marxist model of secularism.

According to Prof. Rajiv Bhargav, Indian model is known as principled distance model. He has given seven features of Indian model.

1. There is strict separation between state and religion. The boundaries are porous.
2. Indian state is not averse to religion, at the same time, state does not identify with particular religion.
3. Different religions are in the foundation of the state. The national symbols, policies etc. are grounded in religion, especially Buddhism and Hinduism.
4. Indian model is politically negotiated model. It is a bargain between majority and minority.
5. He suggests that Indian model is not based on any overarching idea. It has been developed as a mere response to erstwhile circumstances.
6. There is no active hostility, nor passive indifference towards religion.
7. To conclude, Indian model is substantive model.

Rajiv Bhargav further gives three models of secularism.

1. Strict neutrality of state towards religion e.g. France
2. Ultra-procedural like the United States. The US constitution mentions anti-establishment clause. It clearly mentions neither federal nor state government can either promote a religion or declare it official religion.
3. Substantive model of secularism, built on the values of liberty, equality, fraternity, dignity. e.g. India

Secularism and Indian Judiciary

In the landmark case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court explicitly stated that secularism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and was there even before the 42^nd amendment. The court emphasized that the state must have no religion of its own and should treat all religions with equal respect and consideration.

In cases such as Shah Bano Begum (1985), the judiciary has balanced religious practices with the need for social reforms. The court ruled in favor of alimony for a Muslim woman, emphasizing that personal laws should not contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

According to Indian judiciary, while freedom of religion is a fundamental right, anything that is pernicious and exploitative cannot be allowed to remain outside the control of law simply because it is paraded under the garb of religion.

Vedic Idea of Secularism

While Hinduism is understood as a one religion, Vedic literature describes multiple religious practices. Bhagavad-Gita describes four dominant systems of religious practice i.e. karma-yoga, jnana-yoga, dhyāna-yoga, and bhakti-yoga. Further, Gita also gives a hierarchy among these systems, giving the highest position to bhakti yoga. Then, there are other Vedic literatures which describe other practices such as Vaishnava, Shaiva, and Shakta.

Given the wide variety of religious systems and the choice available to an aspirant, there was an effective secularism in the Vedic system. Teachers of different schools were not in conflict with each other although they did compete. We can give following features of Vedic Idea of Secularism.

1. It did not distinguish between faith versus rationality. Thus, religion was not a mere ‘individual faith’, rather a knowledge that can be understood through reason.
2. It did not aim to relegate the religious knowledge into the private sphere; in fact, it encouraged open debate between the systems to find out the truer system.
3. The acceptance of a system of religion by a king was by no means an enforcement of the system across his kingdom. It was a personal choice of the king, and it did not preclude other’s choices. e.g. after Kalinga war, although Ashoka became an active proponent of Buddhism, he did not try to destroy the Vedic system. By permitting the choice of alternative religions, the ruler remained secular.

Democratic

The Greek word ‘demos’ indicate people, while the word ‘kratos’ indicate rule or government. Thus, the word democracy denote government by the people, as against monocracy /monarchy (rule of a single person) or aristocracy (rule of the aristocratic few). Democracy assumes that the sovereignty lies with the people, and each person has same value irrespective of their birth, education or economic or social status. People are their own masters and have an inalienable right to rule themselves in any way they like.

Democracy also acknowledge that people have differences and institutes civilized ways to settle the differences. It includes debates, discussions, persuasion and the elections. Based on the day-to-day involvement of citizens in political affairs, we have direct or indirect democracies.

India is representative democracy with a free and fair elections under an autonomous election commission. While there is indirect democracy at the state and national level, there is also a direct democracy at the level of village in the form of gramsabha.

While India is the best example of democratic governance in the third world, it still remains a ‘procedural democracy’ in comparison to the Western countries (which are called ‘substantive democracies’). The public representatives are not held accountable on a day-to-day basis, often go back on their promises, and people are powerless to do anything about it.

There are even problems in terms of procedural democracy. Still there is huge use of money and muscle power in Indian elections, and Indian politics suffers from criminalization.

To make India democracy in a true spirit, there is an urgent need for electoral reforms, to strengthen institutions, promote political education and encourage public participation in in governance beyond voting.

Republic

The concept of republic is similar to that of democracy. The preamble to the Indian Constitution uses the word “republic” to signify that India is a sovereign state with an elected head of state. This means the head of state is not inherited through a monarchy. It emphasizes that power lies with the people and their elected representatives. Public offices are open to all citizens based on merit, not heredity. By declaring India a republic, the preamble highlights the democratic nature of the government and its commitment to equality and the rule of law.

Justice – Social, Economic and Political

Justice denotes harmonization of interests between individuals, between groups and between individuals and groups on the one hand and interests of the community on the other. Justice seeks to provide each person with their due, balancing individual needs and societal rules.

It is important to note that the preamble does not talk about the justice in a narrow, legalistic manner. Rather, it seeks to establish justice at societal, economical and political level.

Social justice denotes creating a fair and equal society by addressing and rectifying inequalities. It involves ensuring that all individuals have equal access to opportunities, rights, and resources, regardless of their identity or socio-economic status. The concept of social justice encompasses issues such as poverty, education, healthcare, employment, and housing.

In addition to preamble, the Article 38(1) also talks about social justice. It suggests: that “the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.” Article 38(1). Then there are also directive principles which direct the state to secure social justice for its citizens.

Economic justice seeks to address and rectify economic inequalities by promoting fair wages, equitable distribution of wealth, and access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and housing. It involves creating conditions where everyone can participate fully in the economy and have the opportunity to improve their economic status. It emphasizes reducing poverty, preventing exploitation, and ensuring that economic growth benefits all sections of society equitably.

In this regard, article 39 of Indian constitution direct the state to secure 1) right to an adequate means of livelihood 2) ensure that there is no concentration of wealth 3) there is equal pay for equal work 4) children are not abused because of economic necessity and 5) free legal aid is available weaker sections (39A). Apart from this, there are other articles as well, which talk about economic justice (maternity relief, living wage, free and compulsory education etc.)

Political justice refers to the fair and equitable distribution of political power and the rights and opportunities for all individuals to participate in the political process. Dr. Ambedkar believed that political justice would be meaningless unless it was coupled with social justice. In his own words,

“On 26th January, 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic structure, we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic structure, we continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril.”

---

The other principles mentioned in Preamble i.e. LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and FRATERNITY, are quite self-explanatory and hence have not been elaborated here.