The Constitution of India embodies a grand transformative vision. Securing social justice is, in fact, one of the prominent features of that vision. Though the word ‘socialist’ came to be inserted much later into the Preamble of the Constitution, securing social justice for all citizens was very much a part of the original constitutional scheme.
It is incontrovertible that certain principles embodied in the Indian Constitution were premised on the bedrock of socialism. Since most of the members of the Constituent Assembly had a socialist commitment, they laid emphasis on social justice.
However, since the word ‘socialist’, along with the word ‘secular’, was inserted into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution through the Constitution (forty-second amendment) Act, 1976, which was enacted during the dark days of the Emergency, some people tend to think that these words have defiled the Constitution.
It seems to make no difference to them that in the post-Emergency era, two amendments— the forty-third and the forty-fourth— were carried out to undo the damage done to the Constitution through the forty-second amendment but the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were not removed.
Later, in 1994, even the Supreme Court of India, in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, had stated in clear terms that by inserting these two words, the forty-second amendment had only made explicit what was implicit.
Notwithstanding such a categorical assertion by a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, some people still seem to be unconvinced. In the recent past, a writ petition had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble.
In Dr. Balram Singh versus Union of India, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by the incumbent Chief Justice of India rightly dismissed the petition.
What is, however, concerning is that while dismissing the petition, the Bench remarked that socialism in the context of the Indian Constitution means the “State’s commitment to be a ‘welfare state’ and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity”. The Bench also opined that the Constitution of India does not “mandate a specific economic policy or structure”.
It is trite that none of the grand expressions used in the Preamble— sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic— are defined in the Constitution. Further, their meaning in the context of the Constitution cannot be deciphered by relying on any pre-existing academic theories.
What is, however, important to be noted is that these expressions are not intended to be mere platitudes. Each of them has definitive contents that are to be derived from relevant operative provisions of the Constitution. In Dr. Balram Singh, a two-judge Bench interpreted the word ‘socialist’ without reference to such operative provisions. It denuded the concept of much of its contents and reduced it to a pale shadow of itself.
The observation that the Constitution of India does not mandate a specific economic policy is akin to what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated in his famous dissent in Lochner versus New York that “a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizens to the State or of laissez-faire”.
It may be true of the US Constitution but not the Indian Constitution. There are stark differences between the Indian and the US Constitutions. The US Constitution does not explicitly embody any socialist principles but the Indian Constitution did so even in its original form, i.e., even before the insertion of the word ‘socialist’.
‘Socialism’ is basically an economic philosophy. The Constitution which embodies socialist principles cannot be said to not have mandated a specific economic policy. Economic policy framed for governing the operation of the economy must be informed by the social justice principles embodied in the Constitution.
Those principles may be judicially non-enforceable but they are not non-cognisable such as in the case of Ireland. Thus, the expression ‘socialist’ cannot be judicially constructed without taking into cognisance provisions in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Further, by holding that socialism in the context of the Indian Constitution means only “State’s commitment to be a ‘welfare state’ and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity”, the Bench seems to have collapsed the entire idea of ‘socialism’ under the Indian Constitution into ‘reservations’ and ‘welfare schemes’.
The constitutional conception of ‘socialism’ is much broader than that. Its true meaning needs to be constructed in the light of relevant operative provisions in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. Accordingly, socialism in the context of the Indian Constitution has at least the following five main elements:
- Abolition of entrenched inhuman and discriminatory practices that have led to the exclusion of certain sections from mainstream social, political and economic life.
- Pursuit of protective discrimination policies for securing equality in an unequal society. It may be pertinent to add, for the purpose of clarity, that the Indian Constitution permits every process of equalisation. The reservation in education and employment are just parts of it. The State is empowered to do much more.
- Reducing inequalities in income not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people.
- Equitable distribution of material resources of the community.
- Prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production.
Socialism under the Indian Constitution is, thus, much broader than mere commitment to be a welfare State. A welfare State only focuses on securing the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those who are in need. It seeks to alleviate their conditions by providing grants, subsidies, pensions and other benefits.
At best, it may seek to secure a minimum standard of living but not equality in status, facilities and opportunities nor does it seek to secure equality in income and wealth.
At a time when inequalities in income and wealth are widening at an alarming rate, it is important to underscore the broader socialist principles embodied in the Constitution. In the post-emergency era, the State had deflected from the path of pursuing those wider socialist goals. It is time to bring it back on the agenda.
(P. Puneeth is a professor of law at CSLG, JNU, New Delhi who has a keen interest in studying constitutional adjudications by the Supreme Court in India. Courtesy: The Leaflet, an independent platform for cutting-edge, progressive, legal & political opinion, founded by Indira Jaising and Anand Grover.)
