Case Comment: Balram Singh V Union Of India (2024) INSC 893 (Supreme Court Of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 Of 2020, Decided On 25 November 2024)
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 20, 2025
- 2 min read
Snehashree Pradhan, Department of Law, Fakir Mohan University
Sukanya Dwivedy, Madhusudan Law University
1. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Balram Singh v Union of India is a reminder of the accepted position that the Parliament can make changes to the Constitution, including the amendments to the Preamble. The central issue of the debate was with the term “secular” and “socialist” which were added to the Preamble with the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act of 1976. These changes were made during the Emergency period of Indira Gandhi’s rule and were viewed as ideologically motivated additions devoid of any semblance of democratic legitimacy by the petitioners. Many considered the Preamble as the spirit of the Constitution, and argued that it was harmed by a regime operating under extraordinary constitutional conditions.
Over forty years after the 42nd Amendment came into existence, the petitioners contested in Court that its provisions were crafted in such a way that they misinterpreted the intentions of the Constitution’s framers. They claimed that the said terms were purposely left out by the Constituent Assembly and argued that their addition was a result of power abuse by dictatorial rule. In addition, they argued that the term “socialist” constrained economic freedom, and “secular” could be misapplied as a justification for the curtailment of religious freedom. Thus, the petitions challenged both the procedural validity and the substantive impact of the amendment. Their aim was a reaffirmation of constitutional integrity by reverting the Preamble back to the text as it was in 1949.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions at the admission stage and did so within a very succinct but clear judgment. The Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar bench argued that the reasoning put forward did not merit further consideration or detailed examination. It is clear from the Court's explanation that the power of Parliament in amending the Constitution under Article 368 includes the Preamble too, and the addition of “secular” and “socialist” did not breach the basic structure doctrine. It is also important to appreciate the effort the Court made to stress viewing the Constitution as a document which is alive, as it can respond to the changes in society and politics. The Court rests heavily on decades of constitutional evolution and judicial precedent stressing the stabilizing force of a continuity in India’s legal system. This comment aims to analyze the reasoning provided by the Court, the historical context of the amendment, and the larger constitutional issues posed by the case.
