S

Lecture 03 – Preamble, Secularism, and Part I (Articles 1-4) – Vocabulary Flashcards

Indian Polity: Preamble, Secularism, and Part I – Study Notes

  • Overview of what we covered in earlier lectures
    • Recap of preamble discussions
    • Core ideas: constitutionalism, separation of powers, rule of law, popular sovereignty, independent judiciary, fundamental rights
    • Majorities in the Constitution: absolute, simple, effective, special (with four forms of special majority)
    • Cases discussed: Ambedkar’s arguments, Joseph Shine judgment, Nafti Johar judgment
    • Types of majorities in constitutional amendments:
    • 1) Two-thirds of the members present in voting
    • 2) Two-thirds of the members present in voting + majority of the total membership of the House
    • 3) Two-thirds of the total membership of the House + ratification by not less than half of the states
    • 4) Not less than two-thirds of the total strength of the House, not members present and voting (toughest form)
    • Introduction to the Preamble and its significance as the constitution’s identity card

The Preamble: Four themes, four objectives, and the nature of the Indian State

  • The Preamble’s four themes
    • Source of authority
    • Constitution derives its authority from the people (popular sovereignty)
    • A legal fiction: we, the people of India, drafted the Constitution through the Constituent Assembly
    • Date of adoption
    • Adopted on 26 November 1949; came into force on 26 January 1950
    • Historical context: Purna Swaraj resolution (December 1929, Lahore session of the Indian National Congress)
    • Objectives of the Constitution
    • The objectives spelled out in the Preamble
    • Nature of the Indian State
    • Sovereign, socialist, secular, Democratic Republic (capitalized terms to show emphasis)
  • The four adjectives and their meaning
    • Sovereign
    • Socialist
    • Secular
    • Democratic
  • Focus of today’s lecture: secularism

What is secularism? Ideology vs. process; India’s approach: principled distance

  • Key contrast: ideology vs. process
    • Secularism as an ideology (ending with -ism) vs. secularization as a process
  • Simple question to illustrate secularism: should the state interfere in religious matters or should religion dictate state policies?
  • Everyday examples explored in class (to illustrate the logic behind secularism)
    • Pregnancy/abortion decisions: who should decide?
    • Religious dictates in governance (e.g., which religion should determine policy)
  • Global models of secularism
    • United States: mutual exclusion/separation – state does not interfere with religious life and vice versa
    • France: public secularism – display of religious symbols in public spaces may be restricted; state space is secular; religion is to be practiced in private or within religious institutions
    • China: state atheism with a different approach (religion restricted under communist ideology; religion controlled by the state)
  • India’s model: principled distance
    • The state may intervene or abstain in religious matters depending on constitutional morality and the liberty, equality, fraternity of individuals
    • Examples in India: temple darshan timings, deity bath, etc.; judiciary’s intervention in Shabri Malai temple case on women’s entry (24–50 age group rule and entry rights)
  • The principle of mutual exclusion vs. principled distance
    • Mutual exclusion (USA-like): state and religion completely separate
    • Principle of distance (India): a dynamic approach that balances liberty with social justice and equality
  • The 42nd Amendment (1976) and the explicit inclusion of terms in the Preamble
    • Added three terms to the Preamble: socialist, secular, integrity
    • Question: Did India become secular only after 1976? Answer: No. Secularism was implicit before and became explicit with the amendment; the Supreme Court later held secularism as part of the basic structure
  • Constitutional morality and the right to equality vs. religious freedom
  • The debate on whether India’s secularism is “mutual exclusion” or “principled distance” in practice

Secularism in India: Basic structures, equality, and personal freedoms

  • Explicit constitutional provisions reinforcing secularism
    • Articles 14–16: equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment
    • Articles 25–28: freedom of religion and protections for all faiths
    • Secularism as part of the basic structure (as per SR. Bamai v Union of India, 1994)
  • The concept of equality and non-discrimination in religious matters
  • The idea of equal protection before the law across religions
  • The relationship between secularism and fundamental rights

Fraternity, dignity, and the three dimensions of justice in the Preamble

  • The three dimensions of justice mentioned in the Preamble
    • Social justice
    • Political justice
    • Economic justice
  • Social justice: addressing caste-based hierarchy and untouchability
    • Dalit oppression and the Varna/ caste system as a historical social ill
    • Gandhi’s idea of atonement/apology for historic injustices (appeal for social reform and reformative measures)
    • Reservations as a tool for social justice to address historical injustices and provide opportunities to Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs
    • Example: manual scavenging (exploitation of Dalits) and the persistence of untouchability in practice despite Article 17 abolishing untouchability
    • The Supreme Court’s 1996 Dalmia Cement v. Union of India judgment: the state must harmonize competing claims and push for a welfare state that benefits all
    • Debates around “merit” vs. reservation
  • Political justice: equal opportunity to participate in politics
    • Universal adult suffrage (from 1950): all adults had the right to vote and to contest elections regardless of religion, caste, or gender (raised historical notes about age and eligibility)
    • Representation of the People Act, 1951: disqualification rules and grounds for disqualification (section 8(1)–8(4)); examples include terrorism, caste atrocities, adulterated goods, defamation
    • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): disqualification for sitting MPs/MLAs on conviction is immediate unless the conviction is overturned; Section 8(4) declared unconstitutional
    • The “six-year” rule post-conviction for a former convict seeking election (if not limited by HC/SC decision)
  • Economic justice: redistribution and welfare-state measures
    • Progressive taxation as a tool to reduce inequality; examples of tax brackets and surcharges
    • The debate on freebies vs. social welfare spending
    • The Subramaniam Balaji case (1990s/2000s): elections and welfare programs; the Supreme Court’s directives on manifestos (ECI must consult parties and require disclosure of financing for promised schemes)
    • The tension between fiscal sustainability and social welfare programs
    • The case of freebies in Tamil Nadu (buffaloes, juicers, color TVs) and the Supreme Court’s stance: freebies can be a legitimate policy aimed at social justice but must be financed transparently
    • The Subramaniam Balaji case’s implications for election manifestos and funding disclosures by political parties
  • Dignity and privacy: linking liberty to personal dignity
    • The right to privacy as a fundamental right ( KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)
    • The argument that privacy is essential to dignity and to the exercise of other rights
    • Aadhaar program: rationale (duplication leakage) and DBT; the UIDAI and direct transfer of benefits via bank accounts linked to Aadhaar
    • Privacy concerns and the state’s legitimate interest in preventing leakage and duplication; the doctrine of proportionality as a test to balance privacy with legitimate state interests
  • Preamble as guiding light for interpretation
    • Preamble does not create enforceable rights by itself, but aids constitutional interpretation when the language is ambiguous
    • Aadhaar illustrates how interpretation of the Preamble’s values (dignity, fraternity, liberty) can influence judicial reasoning
  • The debate about whether Aadhaar and privacy rights are absolute
    • The state can restrict privacy when a legitimate state interest exists (e.g., preventing fraud in welfare programs)
    • Proportionality: the least restrictive means to achieve the objective; balancing privacy with welfare goals
  • Summary: The Preamble’s aspirational goals (liberty, equality, fraternity) and the realm of dignity guide interpretation and support fundamental rights, including privacy, while recognizing the need for state intervention in welfare and governance

Article 1: India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states – naming, federation, and sovereignty

  • Text of Article 1 (clause 1): "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states".
  • Clause 2: The states and the territories shall be specified in the First Schedule.
  • Clause 3: The territory of India shall comprise states, union territories, and those territories that may be acquired or annexed (future acquisitions possible).
  • The two names: India and Bharat
    • The dual naming arose from a Constituent Assembly debate
    • India represents modern/English naming; Bharat represents traditional/Hindi/Sanskritic naming
    • The compromise: both names are valid for the nation
  • Ambedkar’s explanation about union of states vs federation
    • Why “union of states” and not “federation of states”?
    • India is not the result of a treaty among states; princely states joined India rather than states forming a federation from scratch
    • A federation implies states could secede; in India, no state has the right to secede; hence “union of states” conveys a quasi-federal but non-secessionist structure
    • In contrast with the United States (federal by treaty/compact), India’s union is not formed by a treaty between states; British-era princely states acceded to India
  • Why not call it a federation explicitly? Ambedkar’s reasoning
    • If Article 1 used "federation of states", it could suggest the right to secession for states (which India does not allow)
  • Role and status of Union Territories (UTs)
    • UTs are directly controlled by the Centre; states share a federal relationship with the Union, UTs do not
  • The First Schedule and the 28 states + 8 UTs (originally) – now 28 states and 8 UTs; 12 schedules in total today
  • Schedule explanation
    • Schedules provide explanations and details for articles without bulky, lengthy text in the article itself
  • Puducherry and Goa: territorial acquisitions and later political developments
  • Pondicherry (now Puducherry) and Goa were acquisitions from colonial rule; both later received legislative assemblies
  • The possibility of future territorial changes
  • The option to amend Article 1 to reflect a different naming or constitutional structure
    • Amendments under Article 368 are required for major changes; any attempt to redefine the state’s name or federation status would require consensus and constitutional amendment
  • The balance between unity and plurality in a diverse nation

The arc of the constitutional amending process and the basic structure doctrine

  • Article 368 and the amending procedure
    • Parliament can amend the constitution, but not the basic structure
  • The Berubari Union case (1960): preamble is not enforceable and cannot empower power not granted by the constitution
    • The case held that if a power is not given in the constitution, the preamble cannot provide it, and territorial gifts require a constitutional amendment
    • The Supreme Court held that the government cannot gift territory without an amendment; it must follow constitutional provisions
  • The later view on preamble: preamble is part of the Constitution (by 1973) and part of the basic structure (later clarified)
  • The Kesavananda/Bharati framework (context for basic structure)
    • The basic structure doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution
  • Balaram Singh v. Union of India (2024): latest developments on the preamble
    • The Supreme Court rejected petitions to delete the terms "secular" and "socialist" from the preamble
    • The Court reaffirmed that secularism in India is part of the basic structure and that secularism and socialism are compatible with the preamble’s philosophy
    • The Court held that the date of adoption cannot be altered and that the preamble is part of the basic structure but can be amended within the limits of the basic structure
  • Key takeaway: The preamble is not enforceable as a standalone instrument but guides interpretation and anchors the basic structure; it can be amended in line with the basic structure and through due constitutional processes

Aadhaar, privacy, and the doctrine of proportionality

  • Aadhaar as a governance tool
    • Initiated to curb duplication and leakage in welfare schemes and to enable Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT)
    • UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) created to implement Aadhaar
    • Aadhaar became a de facto universal identifier, linking multiple databases via a common key (Aadhaar number)
  • The privacy debate
    • The 2017 KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India nine-judge bench recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21
    • The Court linked privacy to dignity and framed privacy as essential to the exercise of other rights and to the state’s legitimacy in collecting and sharing personal data
  • Proportionality as a balancing test
    • The least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate state aim should be chosen
    • Examples: surveillance vs. privacy, targeted data collection vs. blanket surveillance
    • The Aadhaar program’s expansion to non-welfare purposes (e.g., SIM cards, bank accounts, travel) raised privacy concerns; the Court examined whether such mandatoriness is proportionate to the aims
  • The practical outcome
    • Privacy is a fundamental right, but not absolute; reasonable restrictions can be justified by legitimate state interests (e.g., preventing leakage in welfare schemes)
    • Aadhaar’s mandate for benefits is acceptable where there is a legitimate state interest and where safeguards and proportionality are observed; blanket mandatoriness beyond welfare purposes may raise privacy concerns
  • Direct benefits transfer and data governance
    • The Aadhaar system acts as a primary key to unify disparate data silos and facilitate direct, transparent transfers
    • The central government’s use of Aadhaar for multiple services has been debated in courts, balancing efficiency with privacy protections

Conclusion and prep tips for exam-ready answers

  • Preamble as philosophy and as a legal interpretive tool
    • It expresses aspirations and helps interpret constitutional provisions, especially when language is ambiguous
    • It is part of the basic structure (as clarified in modern jurisprudence) but not itself directly enforceable as a standalone provision
  • The four adjectives (sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic) remain defensible in contemporary discourse, with nuanced interpretations
    • Sovereignty is still meaningful with internal decision-making and external commitments (e.g., WTO, international norms, defense, borders)
    • Socialist commitments reflect welfare-state principles, equality, distributional justice, and the directive principles (especially Article 39 and related provisions) despite market reforms
    • Secularism in India is “principled distance” rather than strict separation; the state may intervene to ensure liberty, equality, and dignity while protecting all religions
    • Democratic processes (free and fair elections) continue to be defended, with ongoing debates on funding, transparency, and the representation of diverse interests
  • Key cases and their implications for your exam answers
    • Berubari Union (1960): Preamble not enforceable as a standalone power source; constitutional amendments required for territorial changes
    • 42nd Amendment (1976): Explicitly added socialist, secular, integrity; later upheld as part of the basic structure
    • SR Bamai v. Union of India (1994): basic structure doctrine becomes a defendable framework for constitutional amendments
    • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21; reliance on preamble’s dignity and fraternity to interpret privacy
    • Subramaniam Balaji case and Lily Thomas case (2013): election disenfranchisement rules clarified; immediate disqualification on conviction; manifesto financing disclosures
    • Dalmia Cement v. Union of India (1996): social welfare and equity objectives as constitutional imperatives
    • Balaram Singh v. Union of India (2024): reaffirmed preamble’s role in basic structure and rejected calls to erase secular/socialist from the preamble; date of adoption not to be altered; preamble can be amended within basic structure
  • Exam technique pointers (for mains answers)
    • When asked about “adjectives of the Republic” (sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic): present a balanced view with definitions, defendability, and stress points; use examples like welfare programs, taxation, or freedom rights to illustrate each adjective
    • Use precise, exam-friendly points (keywords): e.g., “social justice via reservations,” “economic justice via progressive taxation and welfare schemes,” “liberty via freedom of thought and expression,” “fraternity via common national identity and dignity,” and “privacy as a fundamental right via KS Puttaswamy”
    • Include key cases and their reasoning succinctly, with dates where possible
    • For questions on Article 1, discuss India/Bharat naming, union of states, and the federal vs unitary debate; explain Ambedkar’s rationale and the role of the first schedule
    • When discussing secularism, compare models (USA, France, China) and explain India’s principled distance approach
  • Reading assignment and study plan
    • Assignment: Read the preamble chapter in Lakshmi Kant (preferred) or the suggested Lakshmi Ghant text for deeper understanding
    • Plan: weekly MCQ tests and descriptive tests; practice answer writing with feedback to improve structure, balance, and brevity
    • Continuously connect preamble philosophy with constitutional provisions (Articles 14–16, 25–28) and with basic structure jurisprudence (Kesavananda, SR Bamai, KS Puttaswamy, Balaram Singh)

Quick reference: Key terms and references

  • Preamble themes: source of authority, adoption date, objectives, nature of the state
  • Four adjectives: ext{Sovereign}, ext{Socialist}, ext{Secular}, ext{Democratic}
  • Majorities in constitutional amendments: four forms of special majority (as above)
  • Article 1: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states"; First Schedule lists states and UTs
  • Dual naming: India and Bharat; power to amend under Article 368; constitutional amendment required for major changes
  • 42nd Amendment (1976): added ext{socialist}, ext{secular}, ext{integrity} to the Preamble
  • Preamble’s enforceability: not directly enforceable in court, but guides interpretation; part of basic structure (later jurisprudence)
  • Berubari Union (1960): preamble not a source of power; territorial gifts require amendment
  • Dalmia Cement v. Union of India (1996): social justice and welfare state-building
  • KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21; proportionality doctrine
  • Subramaniam Balaji v. Union of India (199x–2000s): election manifesto financing disclosures; disqualification rules (Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act)
  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): immediate disqualification on conviction; Section 8(4) rendered unconstitutional
  • Balaram Singh v. Union of India (2024): reaffirmed basic structure and the entrenchment of secularism and socialism in the preamble; date of adoption cannot be changed
  • Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and Aadhaar: UIDAI, primary key linking databases, privacy concerns, and the proportionality test for balancing welfare with privacy

Assignment prompts for self-practice (to structure your notes for revision)

  • Explain the four forms of “special majority” for constitutional amendments and identify which form is the toughest and why
  • Discuss the four themes of the Preamble with examples from constitutional provisions and jurisprudence
  • Compare and contrast “mutual exclusion” vs. “principled distance” models of secularism and explain which model India adheres to and why
  • Analyze the role of the Preamble in interpreting constitutional language, with reference to Berubari Union and Balaram Singh (2024)
  • Explain the rationale behind Article 1’s phrasing “India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states” and discuss why Ambedkar rejected calling India a federation of states
  • Discuss the concept of social, political, and economic justice with concrete examples from Indian policy (reservations, MSP, subsidies, and welfare schemes) and jurisprudence (Dalmia Cement 1996, etc.)
  • Summarize the KS Puttaswamy decision and explain the doctrine of proportionality with a welfare-state example (e.g., Aadhaar)
  • Outline the Subramaniam Balaji judgment and Lily Thomas case, focusing on their impact on governance, elections, and the integrity of the political process

Bottom line

  • The preamble frames the Constitution’s philosophy and guides interpretation, but is not itself a standalone enforceable provision; it forms part of the basic structure and protects the nation’s commitment to liberty, equality, fraternity, and dignity
  • Secularism in India is a complex, practice-based approach (principled distance) balancing religious freedom with non-discrimination and social justice; this approach contrasts with other models like mutual exclusion (USA) or state-directed secularism (France/China)
  • Modern jurisprudence (KS Puttaswamy, Balaram Singh, etc.) has reaffirmed the centrality of dignity, privacy, and basic structure in safeguarding constitutionalvalues while accommodating governance needs like welfare, DBT, and data governance
  • Your exam answers should be balanced, precise, and anchored in these core principles, with clear references to relevant articles, schedules, and leading cases