IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12098 of 2021

======================================================

Prakash Sahay, Advocate, Male, aged 67 years, S/o Late Sri Raman Ji

Resident of B 402, Prachi Ashirwad Apartment, behind Abdul Hai Complex,

Exhibition Road, Patna 800001.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Shastri

Bhawan, A- Wing, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi- 110001.

2.

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Secretariat Bihar 800001.

3.

Principal Secretary, Prime Ministers Secretariat South Block New Delhi

110011.

4.

Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block Central

Secretariat New Delhi 110011.

5.

Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat, Patna 800001.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Prakash Sahay, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)

Date : 24-08-2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“(a) To declare Article 30 as ultra vires since, with the

incorporation of the word “Secular” in the Preamble to

the Indian Constitution, the said Article 30 is

infructuous, discriminatory and in conflict with the

very definition of the word “Secular” enshrined in the

Preamble to the Constitution.

(b) To declare Article 30 as ultra vires as after

incorporation of word “Secular” in the Preamble to the

Indian Constitution, the intention was clearly to

consider and treat all religious at par and equal, and

therefore the subject Article 30 is in conflict and

should be removed.

(c) To declare Article 30 as ultra vires, as after

Patna High Court CWJC No.12098 of 2021 dt.24-08-2021

2/7

incorporation of the word “Secular” in the preamble to

the Indian Constitution, the impugned Article 30 is

clearly violative of the fundamental right guaranteed

to those citizens who profess/adhere/follow the Hindu

way of life, faith, belief and practice and constitute the

majority population in India as Hindus while

bestowing a definite and exclusive advantage to non-

Hindu religious followers in India, in the absence of a

lucid, clear cut and unambiguous definition as to what

constitutes a “Minority” and who constitutes this

“Minority”.

(d) To define and declare the exact, clear cut,

unambiguous meaning of the word “Secular” as

enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of India

which is consistent and in consonance with the spirit

of equality, fairness and justice to citizens of all faiths

and religions including those who do not profess any

religious following.

(e) To declare wither Article 30 of Constitution of

India is for up liftmen of minorities at the cost of

Hindu community.”

The issue raised in this writ petition in the nature of

Public Interest Litigation is no more res integra and stands

decided by the Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case

of S.R. Bommai & Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors since

reported in AIR 1994 SC 1918, in which validity and

constitutionality of 42^nd amendment of the Constitution was

considered. By way of 42^nd amendment the word ‘Secular’ was

inserted in the preamble of the Constitution. The Apex Court in

its judgment has held that the concept of ‘Secularism’ was very

much embedded in our constitutional philosophy. By this

amendment what was implicit was made explicit. The relevant

paragraph no. 28 of the judgment of the Apex Court is

reproduced below:-

Patna High Court CWJC No.12098 of 2021 dt.24-08-2021

3/7

“28.Notwithstanding the fact that the words

'Socialist', and 'Secular' were added in