The hearing was prompted by a batch of petitions, including one by senior political leader Subramanian Swamy and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, contesting the amendment that added these terms to the Preamble. The petitioners argued that incorporating such terms without due consent, many years after the Constitution’s enactment, was improper. Swamy contended that these additions made it appear as though the Indian people in 1949 had agreed to define India as a socialist and secular republic, an interpretation he claimed distorted the original intent.
However, the bench, while acknowledging the amendment’s symbolic nature, clarified that these words were added within brackets in the Preamble, making it evident that the modification occurred later. The judges also distinguished India's model of secularism from Western notions, noting its unique development within the Indian context. Justice Khanna pointed out that unlike the French system, which enforces a strict separation between religion and state, Indian secularism accommodates religious diversity while maintaining state neutrality.
During the proceedings, Justice Khanna posed a critical question to the petitioners, asking if their position implied that India should not be a secular nation. In response, the counsel for one of the petitioners, Vishnu Shankar Jain, clarified that they were not disputing India’s secular character but were questioning the process of adding the term without an explicit mandate. Jain further referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s warning about the potential limitations imposed by introducing "socialist" into the constitutional text, fearing it might curtail individual liberties.
On the issue of socialism, the bench addressed the petitioner’s concerns by offering an interpretation that socialism within the Indian context advocates for equal opportunities and fair wealth distribution. Justice Khanna remarked that the Western understanding of socialism, often associated with state control, should not be the framework applied to India’s socio-political landscape.
The discussions also touched on broader concerns regarding potential future amendments to the Preamble. Advocate Upadhyay argued that if the 1976 amendment was upheld, it could open the door to further changes, possibly removing other critical terms such as "democratic" or "republic." This argument was met with skepticism from the bench, which assured that the amendment had not fundamentally altered the core structure of the Constitution, given the explicit marking of the added words within the Preamble.
The case sheds light on the continuing relevance of debates surrounding India's foundational principles, particularly at a time when questions about the country’s secular identity have become more pronounced in political and social discourse. The petitioners are challenging not only the addition of specific terms but also the broader implications of how such changes shape national identity.