New Delhi, Dec 6 : The terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ are not required in the Preamble of the Constitution, and were added in an “undemocratic” manner during the Emergency, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Bhim Singh, who has introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the Upper House to remove these words, said here.
Singh, who introduced The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (amendment of the Preamble) in the Rajya Sabha on Friday, said the words create “confusion” and were not a part of the original Constitution.
“I have introduced a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Preamble of the Constitution, to remove the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’… The original Constitution adopted in 1949, which has been in force since 1950, did not have these two words. Mrs Indira Gandhi added these two words to the Constitution during the Emergency in 1976, under the 42nd Constitution amendment. At that time, no debate was held in Parliament,” Singh told PTI.
“All the opposition leaders — Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, George Fernandes — were in jail. Democracy was being murdered, and in that situation, Mrs Indira Gandhi added these two words. So, this is the word that was added later, and the Constitution should remain in its original form,” he said.
Singh said that the Constituent Assembly had also debated this issue. “The chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr B R Ambedkar, gave an answer. He said the structure of the Constitution of India is such that it will make the country secular. He said it (inclusion of the word) is not needed…,” Singh said.
“There was a debate on the word socialist as well. Ambedkar replied that the Constitution committee cannot force future generations to follow the same political and economic policy. What if tomorrow, someone wants to change the economic policy? As far as socialism is concerned, it is related to the welfare of the people.
“How to ensure the welfare of the people, how to reduce poverty, how should wealth be distributed… all this has been factored in the Constitution,” he said.
The BJP MP alleged that these two words were included for ” politics of appeasement”.
“The term ‘socialist’ was added to make the then USSR happy, and the term ‘secular’ was added to appease Muslims. It is unnecessary. It is not required; it only creates confusion,” he contended.
Asked what his expectation was from the move since only a few Private Member’s Bills have been passed over the decades, he replied, “We understand that the Bill may not necessarily be passed, but the issue would come to the attention of the government and the people.”
Accusing the opposition of “politics of appeasement”, he stressed that while opposition parties may call the bill an attack on the Constitution, it is an effort to restore the Constitution to its original form.
“Was India secular before 1976 or not? Were Nehru ji, Lal Bahadur Shastri or Indira Gandhi running a communal government? Why were these words required then?” he questioned.
The bill calls for removing the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’, while adding that it will not impact any fundamental rights or other provisions of the Constitution.
A private member’s bill is a legislative proposal introduced in parliament by a member who is not a minister. Only 14 private members’ bills have been passed into law in the history of the Indian Parliament, and none have been passed by both Houses since 1970. (PTI)
