SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1082

SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR
Balram Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Dr. Subramanian Swamy Petitioner-in-person Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchi Ranjan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Santi Ranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv. Mr. Keshav Dev, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarti Pal, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. Ms. Vishnu Shankar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Santosh, Adv. Ms. Isha Singh, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Mr. Nalukettil A.S. Nair, Adv. Ms. Maneesha Sunil, Adv. Ms. Neha Kumari, Adv. Mr. S. Anbukrishnan, Adv. Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, AOR Dr. G.V. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, Adv.

ORDER :

Writ Petition (C) No. 645 of 2020 and Writ Petition (C) No. 1467 of 2020

1. 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 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 inser

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top