Can We Remove the Words 'Secular' and 'Socialist' from the Indian Constitution?

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' cannot be removed from the Indian Constitution has sparked debates among legal scholars, politicians, and citizens alike. While some argue that these terms are essential representations of modern values, others question their necessity in a changing socio-political landscape.

Secularism and Socialism: Timeless Values or Outdated Ideologies?

Secularism and Socialism are often seen as ideologies, but they are more accurately described as universal values that reflect the essence of Sanatana Dharma. These values promote the respect for religious diversity, the prevention of economic inequality, and the reduction of social exploitation. In essence, these principles are hallmarks of a modern and mature civilization—they are not merely ideological constructs.

The inclusion of these terms in the Indian Constitution serves as a reminder of the country's evolution and development, rather than a binding mandate for political actions. The logic of retaining these words underscores the idea that they symbolize progress and are not mere relics of a bygone era.

The Supreme Court's Ruling and Its Controversy

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' cannot be removed from the constitution. While this decision aligns with the country's established framework, there is a prevalent sentiment that such terms serve no practical purpose in the current political context. The question remains: are these terms still relevant in today’s socio-political landscape?

The logic behind the court’s decision is self-contradictory. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were introduced during times of significant political upheaval and were not established through the regular constitutional amendment process. These words should logically fall away if they serve no purpose, as changes to the constitution should reflect living and evolving values.

Pragmatism vs. Symbolism in the Constitution

The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were included for symbolic reasons, not to prescribe specific policies or actions. For instance, the presence of 'secular' was insignificant when the government was actively promoting secular values, and its inclusion in 1985 and 2024 demonstrates that the term's presence does not impact governance. Similarly, the term 'socialist' was included despite a drastically different economic landscape, and its presence now reflects the ongoing debate on economic policies rather than actual policies.

The concept of 'secularism' and 'socialism' is open to interpretation. These terms can evolve and adapt to changing societal norms without the need for rigid constitutional language. The Supreme Court's continued insistence on these terms suggests a more symbolic interpretation, which may be unnecessary in a rapidly changing world.

Conclusion and Call for Action

To address the time-wasting debates surrounding these terms, a practical argument is needed. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' hold no practical purpose in influencing governance or policies. Therefore, the court should consider that the debate over these terms is indeed a waste of time and resources.

For the wasteful and fruitless legal challenge brought to the Supreme Court, a fine of Rs. 5 crores may be a fitting punishment. This measure serves as a reminder that legal challenges must have a clear and practical purpose, rather than merely being symbolic gestures.