In Brief
The petitioners challenged the 1976 insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' into the Preamble, arguing it was retrospectively false, that the Constituent Assembly had rejected these words, and that 'socialist' restricts government economic policy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Parliament's amendment power under Article 368 is unrestricted and extends to the Preamble. The Court affirmed that secularism is a constitutional basic structure reflecting equal treatment of all faiths, while 'socialism' denotes welfare-state principles without mandating specific economic policies. Filing 44 years later, when these terms are widely accepted and have not impeded government action, provided no legitimate grounds for challenge.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.