Team code: TC 14

IN SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF ARYAVARTA CONSTITUTION

RASHTRIYA CONGRESS PARTY, HOTOS AND HODOS...PETITIONER

VS

UNION OF ARYAVARTA........................................ RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER

I
s

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Index of AuthoritiesIII
2. Statement of Jurisdiction.V
3. Statement of facts....VI
4. Issues raised.VIII
5. Summary of arguments...IX
6. Arguments Advanced.1
7. Prayer21

II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerela AIR 1973 SC 1461. .................................................. 12
Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746 ......................................... 12
Air India Statutory Corporation v United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 ......................... 29
Albert Raj v The District Collector, Kanyakumari AIR 2005 Mad 444 ................................. 20
Ashok kumar Thakur v Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1. ......................................................... 24
Atam Prakash v State Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859. ................................................................ 28
Atam Prakash v State of Harayana (1986) 2 SCC 249. .......................................................... 30
Bhupal Chandra Ghosh v. Arif Ali AIR 1974 SC 255. ............................................................ 14
D A V College v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731. ........................................................... 13
D S Nakara v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC............................................................................ 28
D T C v D T C Mazdoor Union AIR 1991 SC 101. .............................................................. 28
D.S.Nakara v Union Of India (1983) 1 SCC 305. ................................................................... 29
Dharwad Employees v State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 883. ............................................... 28
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v State of Bihar [1966] 1 SCR 709 .................................................. 14
Excel Wear v Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25. ...................................................................... 28
Golak Nath v State Of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643. ................................................................. 17
Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299. .................................................................... 23
Indira Nehru Gandi v Rajnarain AIR 1975 SC 2299. ............................................................ 21
IR Coehlo v State of Madras AIR 2007 SC 861. ..................................................................... 31
Jayalakshmi v Union of India 2011 SCCOnline Ker 4165. ..................................................... 30
Kakumanu Pedasubhayya v Kakumanu Akkamma 1959 SCR 1249. ...................................... 12
Keshananda Bharti v Union of India AIR 1943 SC 1461. ...................................................... 23
Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 .................................................. 17
Keshavnanda Bharti v Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461. .................................................... 22
Keshavnanda Bharti v Union Of India AIR 1973 SC 1461..................................................... 27
KeshavnandaBharti v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461[ para292,437,599,682 and 1164]. 17
M Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212. .................................................................... 14
M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360{ para 134}. ....................................... 24
M Nagaraj v Union Of India (2006) 8 SCC 212. ................................................................... 24
III

Manglore Ganesh Beedi and Allied Beedi factories Workers v State of Karnataka 2003 (5)
KarLJ 26. .............................................................................................................................. 26
Minerva Mills v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789............................................................... 17
Minerva mills v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789. ......................................................... 18, 30
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945. ................................................. 24
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trsut and Others vs Union Of India (2014) 8 SCC 1. ..... 25
Randhir Singh v Union of India,AIR 1982 SC 879. ............................................................... 28
RanveerUpadhayay v State of UP AIR 1996 All 131............................................................ 13
S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1. ...................................................................... 24
Saint Xavior College Society vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389.................................... 20
Samatha v State of A P AIR 1997 SC 3297. ............................................................................ 28
Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3297......................................................... 26
Secretary H.S.E.B. v Suresh (1993) 3 SCC 601....................................................................... 30
Shabnam Hashmi v Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1............................................................... 24
SR Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1. .................................................................. 22, 23
State of Karnataka v Praveen BhaiThogadia (2004) 4 SCC 684. ........................................... 24
State of Rajasthan v Chawla G (1959) Supp (I) SCR 904...................................................... 14
State Of Uttar Pradesh v Dina Nath (1997) 9 SCC 672. ......................................................... 26
Tata Iron & Steel Co v S R Sarkar AIR 1961 SC 65 ............................................................... 13
Virendra v State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896. ....................................................................... 14
Books
Dr Radhakrishnan, Recovery of Faith (New York, Harper Brothers 1955) 34. ...................... 22
Singhvi LM, Constitution of India (3rd edn vol 1 Thompson Reuters 2013) p 73................... 29
Subhash C Kashyap, Constitutional law of India (Vol 1 Universal Law Publications 2008) p
301. ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Constituent Assembly Debates
CAD Vol 1 p 11. ..................................................................................................................... 27

IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner makes the humble submission before the Central High court of Aryavarta
under article 32 of the Constitution filling a Public Interest Litigation.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Aryavarta is a country of continental dimensions whose political-legal and socio economic

system resembles that of India. Countrys social structuring consists of Aryans, Hodos and
Hotos. Aryans are the majority as they make up 80% of the population, Hodos around 14%
and the other 3% is the Hotos. AryavartaRastraSangh (ARS) has criticised the Hotos and
Hodos stating that their loyalty lies somewhere else, not tot the Country of Aryavarta.
Aryavarta has its own left and right wing of political ideologies. During 2014 a right wing
party AryavartaAwamParty( AAP) has achieved absolute majority in central legislature and
formed the government on its own for the first time. ARS is said to be the ideological parent
of AAP. Theyve been demeaning the Rastriya Congress Party (RCP) since a long time
stating that they have adopted the western ideologies.
Mr.Toroto has demanded that the preamble be restored in its original form which did not
express secular and socialist and that these amendments have put the Aryans in the bad
light. He says it democratic and secular not because of its constitution but due to the fact
that we have inherited the secular ethos of ageless civilisation. The mention of the same in
the preamble is a slur on the face of the majority community. He contends that it was
purposely avoided in the constitution.Mr.Totoro alleges that the freedom of speech and
expression and freedom of practicing and propagating religion has been used by Hodos and
Hotos to openly persuade Aryans to join their faith. His contention is that the democratic
space that has been provided to the minority communities has been misused by Hodos and
Hotos in increasingly resorting to conversions
Mr, Sonaka, a member of the Central Legislature of Artyavarta claimed that the words
socialist and secular have associations which are inconsistent with the enacting
provisions of our constitution. The words equality, fraternity and liberty, justice etc
have historically been associated with the struggle for freedom, which is not the case with
words like secular and socialist. This has created consternation amongst the minorities
who believe that this entire political movement has been purposely planned and executed at
the instance of AAP. Several leaders of Hodos community have made statements in and out
of central legislature that this entire scenario created by AAP in connivance with ARS, is
inherently inimical to the interest of the minorities and they oppose it tooth and nail.

VI

In the meanwhile several places of worship of Hotos have been vandalized and though there
are no evidences to the effect that it has happened at the instance off AAP or ARS, Hotos too
demand through their leaders that the current spate of hatemongering against minorities be
stopped. The Prime Minister has promised that all citizens, irrespective of their faith, would
be treated as equals in the country. He went philosophical while defending the ancient ethos
and ethos of current governance mechanism, claiming that there are no contradictions
between the two. He made a fervent plea on the floor of the central legislature that instead of
fighting amongst ourselves let us unitedly fight the common enemy, the poverty and
destitution of a large section of our population. But this apparently has not convinced the
hodos.
Murakami, a supporter of ARS too makes a statement that the expressions secular and
socialist are vague expressions lacking clear definition and also present a situation of
contradictions within the constitutional system of Aryavarta. The word secular is also not
precise and cannot be defined precisely. Secular may be opposed to religious in the sense
that a secular state can be anti-religious state. In this sense the constitution of Aryavarta is
not secular, because the right to the freedom of religion is a guaranteed fundamental right.
Common sense would require that a document like constitution should not contain words
which are ambiguous and lack precise meaning. As to the expression socialist, there is a
huge private sector owned and operated by the private entrepreneurs, if the expression
socialist taken in its literal and historical sense then the existence of such enterprises would
be an inconsistency.
Mr.Matsukama made another statement, claiming that an amendment made in the Preamble
by way of 42nd Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional and that the Central Legislature
of the Union of Aryavarta has an implied limitation on its powers of amendment. According
to him the Preamble sets out the objectives of the Constitution and, therefore, any tampering
with these objectives would destroy the identity of the Constitution.
Infuriated by this the RCP are now planning to take on the AAP government, accusing it of
conspiring to change the basic structure of the Constitution and the politico-legal system
established under it, destroy the age-old tradition of tolerance and respect for all religions and
ushering into a totalitarian system of governance. They now plan to take the matter to the
Central High Court of Aryavarta, the Highest Court of the Land, which has the power of
judicial review of legislative and executive action.
VII

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THIS PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE CENTRAL HIGH
COURT OF ARYAVARTA?

2. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECT OF AMENDMENT IN THE

PREAMBLE?

3. WHETHER AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY REMOVING THE

WORD SECULAR DISTORTS THE BASIC STRUCTURE?

4. WHETHER AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY REMOVING THE

WORD SOCIALIST DISTORT THE BASIC STRUCTURE?

VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THIS PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE CENTRAL HIGH

COURT OF ARYAVARTA?
A public Interest Litigation has been filed under article 32 of the Aryavarta Constitution to
protect the eminent dangers on the fundamental rights of the minorities that has been caused
by the anti-religious speeches of the members of the ruling party. Also, the Government has
showed its incapability to keep a check on the vandalisation of the minority worship places
which has resulted in disturbed public order. The speeches of the government indicate the
ulterior motive of the ruling government to amend the Preamble to distort the basic structure,
so it is evident for the Honble court being the guardian of the Constitution to protect the
interests of the public at large.

2. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECT OF AMENDMENT IN THE

PREAMBLE?
The preamble is the basic structure of the constitution. It enshrines all the basic philosophies.
Any tampering would result in obscuring the high ideals guaranteed by the Constitution. The
working of constitution reminded us the need of we the people binding ourselves with
certain fundamental duties also. The rights and duties both fundamental yet one enforceable
and other desirable only, are bridged and balanced by DPSP. The preamble represents both
the FR and DPSPs. Despite the holding of the fact that 42nd amendment was valid to the
preamble the Government is trying to change it which is wrong.

3. WHETHER AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY REMOVING THE

WORD SECULAR DISTORTS THE BASIC STRUCTURE?
Secular is the basic feature of the Constitution. It gives assurance and security to thee
minorities that the government will not take any action that will undermine them and protect
their interests. If the word secular is removed it will create a sense suspicion and
insecurities among the minorities that the Government is aiming to act against them on the
basis of ideologies of socio-political organisation.

IX

4. WHETHER AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY REMOVING THE

WORD SOCIALIST DISTORT THE BASIC STRUCTURE?
Socialism is the inherent feature of the constitution and the guiding force of the government
policies for the upliftment of the weaker sections. The word socialist in the preamble speaks
out loud about the welfare state and any hampering with it will result in deprivation of social
welfare schemes based on socialistic pattern and will deprive the people of dignified life
assured under Article 21 of the constitution.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THIS PIL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE CENTRAL HIGH
COURT OF ARYAVARTA?
The Preamble is the mirror to the constitution of Aryavarta. It gives a brief idea of what the
constitution is. The Preamble enshrines the basic philosophy and various rights
guaranteed by the constitution. In the various cases before this Hon'ble Court it has been
held that Preamble is the part of the Aryavartan Constitution1 and it is the Basic Structure.
The members of Parliament are making statements advocating the removal of the word
Secular and Socialist from the Preamble. The said words added in the preamble have not been
questioned by the Courts i.e. the Supreme Court and the High Courts and have withstood the
tests of justness, fairness and reasonableness which are fundamental to any amendment or
legislation for testing its constitutional validity. The present government has achieved the
absolute majority forming the government.

SECULAR SPIRIT
The present government is having the absolute majority and can easily effect the changes it
is demanding. If the government removes the word Secular which is resulting in no harm, it
will only obscure the Secular spirit enshrined under the Constitution and will ultimately
show an ulterior motive that the rights under Article 25-28 which protect the minorities will
be hurdled as the government seems to work not on the secular spirit rather the ARS spirit.
Similarly the Socialist word added is results in advantage to the individuals because it is in
the name of the Welfare spirit that Directive principles of the state policy are given a spirit
that helps to enjoy a dignified life guaranteed under Art. 212 of the Constitution. If removed
then it will start hampering the dignified life of the individual. The State as a custodian of the
power for enforcement of the rule of law owes a corresponding duty to protect these
Fundamental Rights. The State also performs the duty of parens patriae besides making an
endeavour to fulfil the promises contained in Articles 38 or 39-A of the Constitution3 The
removal of the word Socialist will undermine the Directive Principles of the State Policy and

1
2

Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerela AIR 1973 SC 1461.

Francis Coralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746.

thus the State will run away with its sole responsibilities of Welfare State.

The right to apply under Article 32 arises not only where a fundamental right has been
actually infringed, but also where a serious threat to infringe it has been offered by the State 4.
A petition under Art. 32 will be entertained if the petitioner can make out a prima facie case
that his fundamental rights are either threatened or violated; it is not necessary for him to wait
till the actual threat has taken place.5 In the present case it is obvious from the intentions
represented by the speeches of the members of ruling government that they are in a move to
change the Preamble which will ultimately threatens other rights. So the petitioner is before
the Hon'ble Court to protect its fundamental rights.
Just after the voice of removing the word Secular from the Preamble has resulted in
unrest in the country. This has created consternation amongst the minorities who believe
that this entire political movement has been purposely planned and executed at the instance of
AAP. Several leaders of Hodos community have made statements in and out of central
legislature that this entire scenario created by AAP in connivance with ARS, is inherently
inimical to the interest of the minorities and they oppose it tooth and nail. Several places of
worship of Hotos have been vandalized. This has resulted in the insecurity amongst the
minorities.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND THREAT

It has been held by the courts that in the freedom of free movement and right to life and
liberty guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21, it is implicit that they
should be free from fear and threat to life in as much as the life under fear and threat of
death will be no life at all and in cases of imminent threat to the freedom of free movement
and right to life and personal liberty. The Apex court is not powerless, it can issue directions
to the authorities concerned to immediately make arrangements of security of the lives of the
citizens.6 In the present case there is a constant threat to the minorities as there worship
places are being vandalized and the wave of winds seem to be against them. Thus there is a
constant fear to life to the minorities, which the Government has failed to cure thus there is
violation of right to Freedom from Fear and Threat.
3

Kakumanu Pedasubhayya v Kakumanu Akkamma 1959 SCR 1249.

Tata Iron & Steel Co v S R Sarkar AIR 1961 SC 65.
5
D A V College v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731.
6
RanveerUpadhayay v State of UP AIR 1996 All 131.
4

Moreover these fears have also obscured the Freedom to Freedom of Religion guaranteed
under Article 25 to 30 as the minorities are not able to profess their religion freely as they are
continuously subjected to fear of vandalizing their religious institutions. But the Government
has shown its incompetency to protect the rights of the minorities.

The maintenance of public order is meant as prevention of disorder of a grave nature, a

disorder which the authorities thought is necessary to prevent in view of the emergent
situation.7 Absence of public order is an aggravated form of disturbance of public peace,
which affects the general current of public life.8

In the interest of the public order, the State may impose restrictions on the incitement of
feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the community9 and for insulting
the religious feelings of any class of citizens10. But the in the present case the government has
failed to keep a check on these statements which has disturbed the social fabric of the society.
The government is not only denying to pay heed to the statements of dismantling the secular
character of the country but also its members are working on the ideologies of the socio
cultural group of the majority. This favouring of the Government to the majority sect views is
denying the minority the Equality before law as enshrined under Art. 14 and Art. 15 of the
Constitution. The liberties and rights are not only be protected by the State but also it should
be facilitated by it.11 Thus it is the onus on the State to ensure that there is no such
discrimination on the basis of the religion and the views and proceedings of the State should
not be representing the only voice of the majority even though the minorities are continuously
demanding that the current spate of the hate mongering against the minorities should be
stopped. Thus there is a clear cut violation of the fundamental rights of the individual. Thus
the Petitioner is before the Hon'ble Court.

Parliament derives its legislative powers from Article 245 of the Constitution while Article
246 provides for the area of legislation. The legislative power of the Parliament under Article

245 of the Constitution does not extend to deleting the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' from the
preamble which are fundamental for governance of the country.
7

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v State of Bihar [1966] 1 SCR 709.

Bhupal Chandra Ghosh v Arif Ali AIR 1974 SC 255.
9
Virendra v State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896.
10
State of Rajasthan v Chawla G (1959) Supp (I) SCR 904.
11
M Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212.
8

Article 368 of the Constitution does not empower the Parliament to make amendments in the
Constitution by way of deletion or addition of provisions of the Constitution so as to destroy
its basic features as held in the landmark decision of Keshavnanda Bharti.

The Supreme Court being the custodian of the Constitution cannot remain a silent spectator to
such an activity indulged in by the Parliament which is though not constitutionally void but is
destructive. It is the solemn duty of this Hon'ble Court to intervene effectively and issue its
command restraining the Parliament from proceeding further with such futile and
constitutionally void exercise. The 'Socialist' and 'Secular' character of the Constitution are
one of the basic structures of the Constitution and the same being beyond the amending
powers of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution and cannot be disturbed by
way of amendment.

INTERFERENCE WITH ARTICLE 25 AND ARTICLE 29

Deletion of the word 'Secular' from the preamble would empower the State to interfere with
the fundamental right of religion of the citizens guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution
and also with the rights of the religious and linguistic minorities guaranteed by Articles 29 &
30 of the Constitution and for these reasons it is beyond the amending powers of the
Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution.
The deletion of the word 'Socialist' from the preamble will render the policy of reservation in
public employments guaranteed to certain class of citizens by Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution, therefore, directly in conflict with the provisions of the Articles 15 & 16 and
beyond the amending powers of the Parliament under Article 368.
Thus in the view of the dereliction of duties imposed on the Government for the effective
implementation of the fundamental rights of the individual as parens patriae resulting in
disturbance of the public order which can even exaggerate on the failure of Government
taking effective steps, violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the minorities of the
country and attempt by Government to change the Basic Structure and ideologies of the
Constitution of Secularism and Socialist of the Constitution the Petitioner is before the
Hon'ble court filing a Public Interest Litigation for appropriate guidelines by the Hon'ble
Court, the Guardian of the constitution to keep a check on the discrepancies of the present
government and the ruling party which are against the constitutional values.
4

2. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECT OF AMENDMENT IN THE

PREAMBLE?
These are the opening words of the preamble to the Indian Constitution.

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 twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do
HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Literally, preamble means what comes first and goes before or proceeds. In law, statutes
usually contain prefatory statement specifying the reasons for an objective of the text that
follows. Preamble to the constitution embodies Fundamental values and the philosophy
on which it is based and the aims and objectives which founding fathers- speaking for
the people- enjoined the polity to strive to achieve.
By the 42nd constitutional amendment two words Secular and Socialist were inserted in
the Preamble. Preamble being the source which gave the constitution a sense of direction and
laid down the basic fundamental principles enshrined in the constitution. The preamble is
meant to embody in very few and well defined words which the key to understanding of the
constitution. The preamble serves several important purposes. It indicates the source from
which the constitution comes that is the people of India. It contains the enacting clause which
brings into force the constitution. It declares the great rights and freedoms which the people

of India intended to secure to all its citizens and basic type of government and policy which
was to be established.12
Objectives specified in the preamble contain the basic structure of our constitution, which
cannot be amended in exercise of the power under article 368 of the Constitution. 13
In GolakNath v. State Of Punjab14, J. SubbaRao said, Objective sought to be achieved by
the constitution is declared in sonorous terms in its preamble. It contains in a nutshell its
ideals and its aspirations. The preamble is not a platitude the mode is its realisation is worked
out in detail in constitution.
By the 42ndamendment, what was originally described as a 'Sovereign Democratic Republic'
became a "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic" and the resolution to promote
the `unity of the Nation' was elevated into a promise to promote the "unity and integrity of the
Nation". These amendments furnish the most eloquent example of how the amending
power can be exercised consistently with the creed of the Constitution. They offer
promise of more; they do not scuttle a precious heritage.15
The history of shaping of preamble shows that not only was the constitution framed in
its light but it was ultimately settled in the light of constitution.16
The preamble to our constitution serves many important purposes which are as follows:
1. Source from which constitution comes, viz., the people of India.
2. Contains enacting clause which brings into force the constitution.
3. Declares rights and freedom which people of India intended to secure to all citizens and
basic type of govt. and the polity sought to be established.
PREAMBLE FORMS PART OF CONSTITUION
As it was made clear by constituent assembly, the manner in which it was put to vote and
adopted was like that followed for all other provisions of constitution to stand part of
constitution. The heading the constitution of India above the preamble also shows that it is
12

Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.

13

Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.

Golak Nath v State Of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643.
15
Minerva Mills v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.
16
ibid (n 13).
14

a part of it. The court held appropriately in Keshavnanda Bhartis case while referring to
Constituent Assembly Debates that preamble was integral part of constitution and
observations made in Re Berubari case were not correct. Preamble in fact contains basic
features of constitution.
Preamble was not only very much a part of constitution, but was of extreme importance and
constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision
expressed in preamble.

AMENDMENT OF PREAMBLE- UPHELD

In Minerva mills v Union Of India17, C.J Chandrachoor speaking for the majority the
edifice of our constitution has been built upon on the concepts crystallised in the preamble,
the amendments arent only within the framework of the constitution but they give vitality to
its philosophy; they afford strength and succour to its foundations. By the aforesaid
amendment, what was originally described as a Sovereign, Democratic, republic became a
Sovereign, Socialist, secular, Democratic, republic and the resolution to promote unity of
nation was alleviated into a promise to promote Unity and integrity of nation. These
amendments furnished the most eloquent example of how the amending power can be
exercised consistently with the creed of the constitution.
The constitution, Living and organic document, speaking through its mouth, the preamble
gives its blessing but at the same time expects a commitment and fulfilment. The
constitution gave us rights alleviated to FUNDAMENTALS. The working of constitution
reminded us the need of we the people binding ourselves with certain fundamental duties
also. The rights and duties both fundamental, yet one enforceable and other desirable only,
are bridged and balanced by DPSP.
The right so conferred, to borrow the words of CJ. Chandrachud in Minerva Mills vs. Union
Of India18, would be without a radar and a compass, they were geared to an ideal; in the
same manner the attainment of the ideals set out in part IV would become pretence or
tyranny if the prize to be paid for achieving that ideal is human freedom.

17
18

Minerva mills v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.

ibid.

The 42nd amendment introduced some qualifying terms such as socialist, secular and also
unity and integrity of nation. These were generally clarificatory in nature and did not make
substantial difference to the nature of the polity of the state as socialism; secularism and
national integrity were, according to law makers already implicit in the preamble and in the
rest of constitution as originally framed.
Like socialism and secularism is it difficult to define every word of the Preamble. The
constitution makers inserted the basic concepts in the Preamble but left the conception to be
decided as and when the time needs. Therefore, secularism and socialism are the concepts
enshrined in the constitution and need not be defined specifically as they change with the felt
necessities of time. Thus the contention of removing the words as being undefined is
fallacious.
Thus it is humbly submitted that the Preamble represents the high ideals to be achieved by the
Constitution and tempering with it will be amending the basic structure and will result in
undermining the guarantees given by the Constitution.

3. WHETHER AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY REMOVING THE

WORD SECULAR DISTORT THE BASIC STRUCTURE?
Aryavarta is a country having social structure consisting of Aryans, Hodos and Hotos, which
are the three dominant communities in the country. With Aryans in majority consisting of
roughly 80% of the population, Hodos around 14% and Hotos 3%. Remaining 3% are some
smaller groups an essentially indigenous community are a nation of huge diversity and
accommodates every culture and religion.

The secular character of the nation is reflected in its history. Aryavarta has been a nation of
various religions and still has been nation of integrity and unity. The ethos of secularism were
inherited from the ancient ages and still continue to be very much inherent in the people of
this country. Freedom of Religion gives color to the word secular as something related to
the religion specific. So, whenever the reference to the word secular was made it took the
color of religion. By putting word secular in the Preamble, it has been categorically assigned
that the word Secular means that the State will not have any religion but will respect every
religion equally as is defined by the courts.
8

Secularism therefore, is susceptible to a positive meaning that is developing understanding

and respect towards various religions. Based on such mutual understanding and respect for
each others religious faith, mutual distrust and intolerance can gradually be eliminated.
SECULARISM - A GUIDING PATH
A basic feature of Aryavarta is that it is a country with tremendous diversity having so many
religions, castes, communities and ethnic groups. Hence the only policy that can work in
this country and keep it united and on the path of progress is the policy of secularism
and giving equal respect to all religions, castes, ethnic groups etc. without such a policy our
country cannot survive for long.19
It is true that the word Secular was not inserted in the Preamble by the Constituent
Assembly but the concept of secularism was deeply rooted and embodied in the Constitution
before the 42nd Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution but it was scattered in
different parts. Though the Right to Freedom of Religion is contained under Article 25-28 but
just these freedoms do not ensure in-toto the secular spirit. These provisions have to be read
with the Article 14-16.
Before the 42 amendment, the only mention of the word secular in the constitution was in
article 25(2) wherein the state has been empowered to regulate or restrict any secular activity
associated with religious practise. Obviously, here the connotation of secular of nonreligious or to matters of other than purely religious. The 42 amendment did not define the
word secular but in fact it was felt that if meant to clarify that was already present as a basic
feature. Also, it was inherent in the guarantee of freedom of religion as FR.
In Saint Xavior College Society vs. State of Gujarat20, it was held that even though the
constitution did not speak of a secular state, there could be no doubt that constitution makers
wanted to establish such a state.21
The 45th constitution bill sought to lay down that secular and democratic character of the
constitution would be regarded as being among the basic feature of constitution. However
before bill was enacted as 44th amendment the list of basic features was dropped. This

19
20

Albert Raj v The District Collector, Kanyakumari AIR 2005 Mad 444.
Saint Xavior College Society v State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389.

abortive bill had also tried to define secular republic to mean a republic in which there is
equal respect for all religion.
When read as a whole, the real concept of secularism comes out in the picture that the State
will allow every religion to flourish without it being aligned to any particular religion and
will respect every religion equally. Thus, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment adding the
word Secular to the Preamble clearly recognised and mentioned the secular spirit of the
Constitution.
With the insertion of Secular word in the Preamble, it has strengthened the mandate of
Article 44 of the Constitution as the preamble enshrines the noble vision sought to be
achieved in the near future.
The word Secular clearly acknowledged the fact that The state shall have no religion of
its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.22 The mention of the word Secular also
checked that all individuals are given equal enjoyable life conditions irrespective of ones
religion. This has immensely helped the Courts in the interpretation of various statutes and
has helped the courts in deciding the matters has given due respect to the secular spirit of the
constitution.
PRE-INDEPENDENCE ERA
With the nation of such diversity it was a challenging task before the constitution makers to
protect and preserve the various socio-cultural diversities along with people of different faith.
Religion is something which was very integral to the people of this nation. The moment
Hindus and Muslims united the nation got its independence. During framing of constitution
the following is the brief notion of secularism and democracy.
During the debates Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared that secularism was an
ideal to be achieved and that establishment of a Secular State was an act of faith, an act
of faith above all for the majority community because they will have to show that they
can behave towards others in a fair and just way.
The great statesman-philosopher Dr Radhakrishnan said "When India is said to be a secular
State, it does not mean that we reject reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to
22

Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj narain AIR 1975 SC 2299.

10

life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive
religion or that the State assumes divine prerogatives. Though faith in the Supreme is the
basic principle of the Indian tradition, the Indian State will not identify itself with or be
controlled by any particular religion. We hold that no one religion should be given
preferential status, or unique distinction, that no one religion should be accorded special
privileges in national life or international relations for that would be a violation of the basic
principles of democracy and contrary to the best interests of religion and Government. This
view of religious impartiality, of comprehension and forbearance, has a prophetic role to
play within the national and international life. " 23
The most important point that every member of the Constituent Assembly stressed on was
that secularism to Aryavarta must mean a separation of government and religion, but not an
absence of spirituality. H V Kamat said, a secular state [was] neither a godless state nor an
anti-religious state. While they acknowledged the danger of allowing religion to be a part of
governance, they also recognized the need all communities in their new found republic would
have for representation.
The intention of the framers of the constitution was to make this a place of every religion and
state respecting all the religions irrespective of the social composition comprising Aryans in
majority and others in minority. This very intention was reflected in the Fundamental Rights
as well DPSPs.
POST INDEPENDENCE ERA
It was held in KeshavnandaBharti v state of Kerala24by the majority that secularism is the
basic structure of the constitution and cannot be altered by any amendment or legislative
action. Keeping that in mind 42nd amendment inserted the word secular in the preamble of
constitution.
After 27 years of Independence this intention was expressed by way of 42nd constitutional
amendment.
The meaning sort to be given to the term secular in 42nd amendment is that of
Sarvadharmasambhava that is treating all religions alike or giving equal respect to all

23
24

Dr Radhakrishnan, Recovery of Faith (New York, Harper Brothers 1955) 34.

Keshavnanda Bharti v Union of India AIR 1973 SC 1461.

11

religions, instead of dharmanirpeksh or panthnirpeksh i.e. state neutrality in matters of

religion.
In S.R.Bommai v. Union of India25, it was held that Notwithstanding the fact that the words
'Socialist' and 'Secular' were added in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd
Amendment, the concept of Secularism was very much embedded in our constitutional
philosophy. The term 'Secular' has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very
elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined. By this
amendment what was implicit was made explicit. The Preamble itself spoke of liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. While granting this liberty the Preamble
promised equality of status and opportunity.
The judge B.P. Jeewan Reddy, J. in S.R. Bommai v. Union Of India26 observed as under:
Secularism is thus more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive
concept of equal treatment of all religions. This attitude is described by some as one of
neutrality towards religion or as one of the benevolent neutrality. This may be a concept
evolved by western liberal thought it maybe, as some say, an abiding faith with the Indian
people at all points of time. That is not material. What is material is that it is a constitutional
goal and basic feature of the constitution as affirmed in Keshvananda Bharti v. State of
Kerala27 and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain28. Any step inconsistent with the constitutional
policy is in plain words, unconstitutional. It is absolutely erroneous to say that that
secularism is a vacuous word.
The court clearly based its conclusion not so much on violation of the particular
constitutional provision but on this generalised ground, i.e. evidence of a pattern of action
directed against the principle of secularism. Therefore, it is important to note that the
recognition of basic structure in the context of amendment provides an insight that there are
beyond the words of particular provisions underlying systematic principles and connecting
the provisions of the constitution.
These principles give coherence to the constitution and make it an organic whole. The
principle of reasonableness that connects the article 14, 19 and 21. Some of these principles

25

S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.

S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
27
Keshananda Bharti v Union of India AIR 1943 SC 1461.
28
Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299.
26

12

may be so important that they may be termed as the basic structure of the Constitution as in
not open to amendment. 29
It was held in this case that if any political party in power supports encourages or
sabotages secularism then it can be said that a situation has arisen where the
government of the state cannot be run in accordance of the constitution. 30
Secularism has acted as a balance between socio-economic reforms which limits religious
options and communal developments.31
In a more recent case Ashok Kumar Thakur v Union of India,32 it was reiterated that by
inserting secularism in the Preamble what was implicit was made explicit. The Concept of
secular state was already given in the article 25-28 that is the right to propagate any religion
and the court wouldnt be biased towards any religion. This was just explicit when the word
secular was inserted and thus it did not tamper with any sentiments of the people. Thus it
wasnt unconstitutional.
The meaning of the term secularism in the context on which it is employed in the
Constitution is that the State shall not interfere in the religious affairs of its people.
In State of Karnataka v Praveen Bhai Thogadia33 it was held that secularism is a part of
the fundamental law and an unalienable segment of the basic structure of the countrys
political social system, constitution of India, article 25 and preamble.
The word secular recognises the concept of secularism as manifested in the guarantee of
freedom of religion as a fundamental right in the constitution. Thus, secularism was a part of
the constitution even before the word secular was inserted in the preamble.34.
In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum35, the court relied on Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
over the personal laws as the provision of Cr.P.C. was a secular provision.
In Shabnam Hashmi v Union of India36 the court again relied on the Juvenile Justice Act to
allow the Muslims to adopt a child, again overriding the personal law. The court again relied
29

Subhash C Kashyap, Constitutional law of India (Vol 1, Universal Law Publications 2008) p 301.
S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
31
M Nagaraj v Union Of India (2006) 8 SCC 212.
32
Ashok kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1.
33
State of Karnataka v. Praveen BhaiThogadia (2004) 4 SCC 684.
34
M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360.
35
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945.
36
Shabnam Hashmi v Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1.
30

13

on the fact that the Act is secular in nature so it will have a wide effect. Thus it is the
reorganization of Secular spirit explicitly by the Preamble that has saved the secularism
spirit. If the word Secular is removed from the Preamble then again it will be sole discretion
of courts to read in secularism or religion in a particular case and thus it will arbitrary and
violative of Art 14 of the Constitution.
No sane man would question the proposition that the objects of religion and politics are
different and that they should not be mixed up. Obviously, the cause of both will be
ruined if the one is used for achieving the purposes of the other. It may also be conceded that
if secularism be a basic feature of the Constitution, it would be impaired if the freedom of
religion is subverted to achieve political purposes.
It is beyond the powers of Parliament under Article 368 to alter the basic structure or
framework of the Constitution. It was emphasised in Pramati Educational and Cultural
Trsut and Others v Union Of India37that, phraseology like damaging or destroying the basic
structure or essential features are only a method of arriving at the final conclusion as to
whether there is an alteration in the basic structure or framework.
An alteration of basic structure is sufficient. Destruction is not necessary. However,
destruction of essential features may result in alteration.
The Constitution of Aryavarta which is often considered as an organic document laid down
the foundation of this nation and enumerated certain principles which were very fundamental
in the functioning of this living document. Some principles were expressed and some were
implied but these principles made the very essence of this Constitution. To make certain
principles stronger in their presence and to make them more visible socialist and secular
were added in the Preamble which is the introductory as well as visionary document of the
Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
The preamble of the constitution which derives source from We the people of India,
envisions an egalitarian social order to integrate all the people with equality status, dignity of
person and fraternity as a United Bharat and providing them socio-economic justice, equality
of opportunity and status of a person.
It is beyond imagination to find out the reason why was it so necessary to even start this
debate when there was no necessity prima facie. The need to remove these two words at this
37

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Others v Union Of India (2014) 8 SCC 1.

14

point of juncture will only harm the nation. After 42nd amendment these two features of the
Constitution have become inherent in the Constitution of Aryavarta and has been adopted
well by the people of Aryavarta. So, its kindly submitted that there is no emergency to alter
the Preamble in the midst of suspicions amongst the minority. Its the responsibility of the
Government and ruling party to maintain secular fabric of the nation. It is a well settled
position that preamble is part and is the basic structure of the constitution38 and the any
change in the Preamble removing the word Secular will be against the spirit of the
Constitution and will obscure the high ideals of the Constitution and disrupt the social fabric
of secularism.

4. WHETHER

AMENDING

THE

WORD

SOCIALISM

FROM

THE

PREAMBLE WILL DISTORT THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE

CONSTITUTION?
The constitution of Aryavarta declares the country to be a socialist, republic besides being a
secular cum sovereign democratic republic. Although socialism has not been defined in
the Constitution, its commonly understood to mean from each according to his ability to
each according to his need although above literal meaning cannot be blindly accepted, with
the introduction of this word vide 42nd amendment, the State has aimed to remove inequality
in income status in life with the object of providing decent standard of life in workplace. 39
A socialistic society involves a planned economy which takes note of time and space
considerations in the distribution and pricing of output.
The Aryavarta conception of socialism and democracy with human dignity is by creation of
opportunities for the development of each individual and not the destruction of one.
Fundamental duties in Part IV-A of the constitution to bear meaningful content, facilities and
opportunity on equal footing is the fundamental condition of the socialist society.40
PRE-INDEPENDENCE ERA
It is very evident from the pre-constitutional era that our founding fathers always wanted to
have the society of equals. The slavery for 200 years and the struggle for independence made

38

State Of Uttar Pradesh v Dina Nath (1997) 9 SCC 672.

Manglore Ganesh Beedi and Allied Beedi factories Workers v State of Karnataka 2003 (5) KarLJ 26.
40
Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3297.
39

15

them realise that society cannot survive without the inclusion of each and every society
specifically the weaker section in the progress of the nation.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in one of his speeches said, Well, I stand for Socialism and, I
hope, India will stand for Socialism and that India will go towards the constitution of a
Socialist State and I do believe that the whole world will have to go that way. What form of
Socialism again is another matter for your considerations?
But the main thing is that in such a Resolution, if, in accordance with my own desire, I had
put in, that we want a Socialist State, we would have put in something which may be
agreeable to many and may not be agreeable to some and we wanted this Resolution not to
be controversial in regard to such matters. Therefore we have laid down, not theoretical
words and formulae, but rather the content of the thing we desire. This is important and I
take it there can be no dispute about it.41
Article 31-C was inserted by 25th amendment Act which stated that laws giving an effect to
DPSP enshrined under 39(b) and (c) will overpower the FR of individuals the same was held
to be constitutionally valid in Keshavnanda Bharti vs Union Of India42, thus this shows that
we were in a mode to follow the socialist pattern of society. The insertion of the word
socialist thus doesnt immediately bind us to that pattern but shows our gradual inclination
towards it. 43
V.D.Tripathi felt that the word justice could be interpreted in diverse ways according to the
predilection of those in power at a given time, it was necessary to declare beforehand that the
state to be created under the constitution would not be established on a capitalistic basis.
This debate clearly indicated the intention of the founding fathers. The speech given on the
floor of the Constituent Assembly unequivocally tells us that their objective was the
protection of the weaker section of the society and the only best method to achieve this
objective was through socialism. Simply not including the word just for the sake of avoiding
controversies doesnt mean that they were against the word socialism.

41

CAD Vol 1 p 11.

Keshavnanda Bharti v Union Of India AIR 1973 SC 1461.
43
D D Basu, Shorter Consitution of India, (Vol 1, 2004 13th edn) 387.
42

16

CONSTITUTINAL PROVISIONS
The insertion of the word 'socialist' in the Preamble has only made explicit what was
already latent in the constitutional scheme.44 The important of the word socialist is
recognized by the courts as it has held that the word Socialist(a) Read with Article 39(d) would enable Court to uphold the constitutionality of laws of
nationalization of private property. 45
(b) Read with Articles14, 16 would enable the Court to deduce a fundamental right to 'equal
pay for equal work46.
(c) Read with Article14 to strike down a statute which failed to achieve the socialist goal to
full extent47, or which adopts a classification which is not in tune with the establishment of a
welfare society48.
(d) Read with Articles 39(d) and 14 would enjoin the state to regularize 'casual workers',
with parity in pay with regular workers.49
(e) Read with Articles14, 15,16,17,21,23,38,39,46 and all other cognate Articles seek to
reduce inequalities in income and status and provide equality of opportunity and facilities50.

Establishment of the egalitarian social order through the rule of law is the basic structure of
the constitution. The fundamental rights and DPSPs are the means as two wheels of chariot,
to achieve the above object of democratic socialism. The word socialist used in preamble
must be interpreted from the goals of articles 14, 15, 17,21,23,38 and 46, i.e., to reduce
inequalities in income and status.
The point is that socialist is not an empty phrase and does not reflect political
opportunism. It expresses widely felt sentiments and gives a sense of direction to more
detailed social and economic programmes and policies of governments. It does not
represent a doctrinaire and theoretical commitment of the state but rather is part of a

44

D T C v D T C Mazdoor Union AIR 1991 SC 101.

Excel Wear v Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25.
46
Randhir Singh v Union of India,AIR 1982 SC 879.
47
D S Nakara v Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130.
48
Atam Prakash v State Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859.
49
Dharwad Employees v State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 883.
50
Samatha v State of A P AIR 1997 SC 3297.
45

17

pragmatic and flexible approach especially when there has been an over-emphasis on the
growth fetish in recent times.

The principles of what is known as the socialistic welfare State are found in Article 38.
It attempts to promote social justice by means of nationalisation and State action for a
better distribution of material resources of the country among its citizens and to prevent the
exploitation of the weak and the helpless. 51
Socialism is based on certain philosophies though it may not have any definition as such but
its certainly embodies principles of equality and justice. What Article 39 describes are the
basic tenets of socialism. What the state should follow has been clearly specified in this
article. This clearly shows the inclination towards socialism.

INTERPRETATION OF WORD SOCIALISM

In D.S.Nakara v. Union Of India52 it was stated that: The principal aim of a socialist State
is to eliminate inequality in income and status and standards of life. The basic framework of
socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and especially provide
security from cradle to grave. This amongst others on economic side envisaged economic
equality and equitable distribution of income. This is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism
leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism.
In Air India Statutory Corporation v United Labour Union53, the court has held that the
Preamble and Article 38 of the Constitution envision social justice as the arch to ensure life to
be meaningful and liveable with human dignity.
In Jayalakshmi v Union of India54 it was stated that: The constitution in its preamble

promises that the republic shall be socialist and constitutional socialism is built on the
bedrock of humane humanism. It would be myopic and puerile to assume that constitutional
socialism represents any competing political ideology. It would be legally irrational to
assume that constitutional socialism would wither away with in the light of privatisation,
51

Singhvi LM, Constitution of India (3rd edn vol 1 Thompson Reuters 2013) p 73.
D.S.Nakara v Union Of India (1983) 1 SCC 305.
53
Air India Statutory Corporation v United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 .
54
Jayalakshmi v Union of India 2011 SCCOnline Ker 4165.
52

18

liberalisation and globalisation which has been ushered in or accepted as the economic policy
of the state for four decades. The preamble commitment to constitutional socialism must
survive and transcend the winds of changes in policy.
In Minerva Millsvs Union of India55 Speaking for the majority, C.J. Chandrachud observed
as under: This is not mere semantics. The edifice of our constitution is built upon the
concepts crystallised in the preamble. We resolved to constitute ourselves into a socialist
state which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people social, economic and
political. We therefore put Part IV in our constitution which specifies the socialist goal to
be achieved.
The Constitution Bench had considered the meaning of the word "socialism" to crystallise a
Socialistic State securing to its people socio-economic justice by interplay of the
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.56
In Atam Prakash v. State of Harayana57 it was held that, the preamble embodies and
expresses the hopes and aspirations of the people. The implication of the word socialist
which has now become the centre of hopes and aspirations of the people a beacon to all that
is enshrined in the articles of the Constitution is clearly to set up a Vibrant throbbing
socialist welfare society in the place of a feudal exploited society.
What does a Socialist Republic imply? Socialism is a much misunderstood word. Values
determine contemporary socialism pure and simple. 58
In Secretary H.S.E.B. vs Suresh59, the SC held that, Socialism ought not to be treated as a
mere concept or an ideal, but the same ought to be practised in every sphere of life and be
treated by the law courts as a constitutional mandate since the law courts exists for the society
and required to act as a guardian-angel of the society. Ours is a socialist State as the Preamble
depicts and the aim of socialism, therefore, ought to be to distribute the common richness and
the wealth of the country in such a way so as to sub-serve the need and the requirement of the
common man.

55

Minerva mills v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.

ibid.
57
Atam Prakash v State of Harayana (1986) 2 SCC 249.
58
D S Nakara v Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130
59
Secretary H.S.E.B. vs Suresh (1993) 3 SCC 601.
56

19

In I.R.Coehlo v. State of Madras60, the court held that the constitutional validity of laws
could be adjudged by applying the direct impact and effect test, i.e., rights test, which
requires that it is not the form of a law, but its effect, that would be the determinative factor.
It is the court that is to decide if this interference is justified and if it does or does not amount
to violation of the basic structure.
As stated, the role of the court is determination by court whether invasion was
necessary and if so to what extent. This position then serves to shift the determination of
the need for the law from the Parliament to the courts for decision. It also allows the courts
the flexibility of both the rights test and the essence of rights test in dealing with the validity
of such cases.
The interpretations made by the court serve as the mandate that socialism is part of basic
structure and is very integral to Preamble and the Constitution. Thus in view of these
decisions we can see that the court has used the word socialist in view to support and
enhance the directive principle of the State so that the good of maximum number is
achieved. Thus the amendment in 1976 only indicated that the country needed socialistic
approach in order to disseminate the existing inequalities. Thus it is valid. If it is removed
now then again the situation will be reverted back to the pre 1976 situation with poverty and
great inequalities among the individuals as the hands of the state will be tied up by individual
rights as against social benefits.
Regardless of the economic course that governments since 1991 have pursued, the principle
of socialism takes into consideration objective realities of Aryavarta, where there continue to
be large numbers of poor people. Market reforms will mean abandoning these people as they
do not have the wherewithal to compete in the market. Aryavarta cannot shelve being
socialist, whether in letter or in spirit. Our inequality is a crying shame and having socialist
in the Constitution is a valuable exhortation to limit this.
Therefore, it is very much important to understand that the word Socialist has become
inherent in the constitution of Aryavarta and any change pertaining to this will be a direct hit
on the constitutional scheme and will interfere with the dignified life guaranteed of
individual.

60

IR Coehlo v State of Madras AIR 2007 SC 861.

20

PRAYER
In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner humbly submits
that the Honble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The petition before the Honble Court is maintainable.
2. To declare that the word secular is a basic feature and should be followed by the
Government in its spirit.
3. To declare that the word socialist is a basic feature and should be followed by the
Government in its spirit.
4. To declare that Preamble represents the basic unamendable feature of Constitution.
Any tampering will destroy the basic structure.
5. To give direction to the Government to control the present state of anti-minority
affairs and to keep a check on its member speeches which has ignited anti- religious
environment and suspicion.
6. Any other remedy as the court finds suitable in the interest of the justice.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted.
Counsel for Petitioner.
Sd/-

21