The Constitution of India was adopted on November 26, 1949. It came into force on January 26, 1950. January 26, 1950, is celebrated as Republic Day in India, marking the country’s transition to a republic. The current Preamble defines India as a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic”. The original text simply read “Sovereign Democratic Republic”. The terms “socialist” and “secular” were added via the 42nd Amendment during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule in 1976.
The recent remarks by RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale have reopened a decades-old political and constitutional debate: Should the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ remain in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution? At an event marking 50 years of the Emergency, Hosabale questioned whether these terms were compatible with the original spirit of the Constitution drafted by BR Ambedkar. The backdrop to this debate is not new. It cuts to the heart of how India defines its national identity, its governance philosophy, and the limits of parliamentary power. His remarks echoed long-standing arguments from critics who call the amendment undemocratic and ideologically motivated.
The current Preamble defines India as a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” – a formulation that did not exist when the Constitution came into effect on January 26, 1950. The original text simply read “Sovereign Democratic Republic”. The terms “socialist” and “secular” were added via the 42nd Amendment during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule in 1976, a period widely described as authoritarian, when civil liberties were suspended and constitutional checks were weakened.
Contrary to popular belief, these terms were not ignored by the Constitution’s drafters. The Constituent Assembly had debated them. Members like KT Shah, Hasrat Mohani, and HV Kamath had proposed explicitly declaring India a “secular” and “socialist” state in the Preamble. Shah argued that it would affirm India’s commitment to religious neutrality and economic justice.
However, Dr BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, opposed their explicit inclusion. He was not against the values themselves, but he argued that locking ideological principles into the Preamble would violate democratic flexibility. Ambedkar believed policy directions like socialism should be left to future elected governments. As he told the Assembly, embedding socialism into the Preamble would be “destroying democracy altogether”. Ambedkar maintained that secularism was already implicit in the Constitution through Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution ensured freedom of religion and non-discrimination on religious grounds. He believed that India’s secular ethos was already embedded in the constitutional framework, making it unnecessary to label the state with that term in the Preamble.
India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a strong advocate of both secularism and socialism. He championed religious liberty, state neutrality, and economic redistribution. Yet, like Ambedkar, he did not push for these words to be inserted in the Preamble. His vision was to let the Constitution serve as a neutral framework within which policy could evolve democratically.
The terms “socialist” and “secular” were introduced via the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. At the time, Parliament functioned under duress – opposition leaders were jailed, press freedom curtailed, and civil liberties suspended. Indira Gandhi’s government justified the insertion by arguing it would reinforce India’s commitment to social justice and religious equality. “Secular” reflected state neutrality in religious matters. “Socialist” signalled her government’s focus on welfare policies and poverty eradication, embodied in her slogan ‘Garibi Hatao’.
In practice and principle – yes. India had adopted policies aligned with socialism, including land reforms, nationalization of key industries, public sector expansion, and progressive taxation. Similarly, secularism had been practised through equal legal protection for all religions, the absence of a state religion, and non-interference in religious matters. So, while the words were missing from the Preamble until 1976, the ideas were reflected in the broader constitutional scheme and post-independence governance. The inclusion of these terms has faced legal challenges. The most recent one was in Dr Balram Singh vs Union of India (2024). The Supreme Court dismissed the plea to remove the terms, reaffirming that Parliament had the power to amend the Preamble under Article 368, as long as the basic structure of the Constitution remained intact. The bench ruled that Indian secularism implies equal respect for all religions, not hostility to religion itself. On socialism, it clarified that India’s version supports economic justice, not full state control, thus allowing a mixed economy where both private and public sectors operate. Earlier, in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court held that the Preamble was part of the Constitution and could be amended, but not in a manner that violated its “basic structure”.
The political Right, especially the RSS and sections of the BJP, have long viewed the Emergency-era additions with suspicion. The recent demand from Hosabale reflects this view, that the terms were inserted undemocratically and that they impose an ideological agenda on all future governments. Critics of the terms often argue that “secularism” has been distorted into “minority appeasement” or “pseudo-secularism”, terms popularised by BJP leaders like LK Advani. On the other hand, the Congress and other secular parties argue that these terms affirm India’s pluralistic ethos and commit the state to social responsibility.
Despite the controversies, the words “socialist” and “secular” have now been part of the Preamble for nearly five decades. They continue to shape India’s legal and policy frameworks, from welfare schemes to religious freedom protections. Governments across party lines have upheld welfarist policies, and the judiciary has consistently interpreted the Constitution through these lenses. In 2015, the BJP government used an image of the original Preamble (without the 1976 terms) in a Republic Day advertisement. This sparked a nationwide controversy. Ministers defended it by calling for a healthy debate on the original constitutional vision.
