Justice KM Joseph argued that simply removing the term “secularism” from the preamble wouldn’t alter the Constitution’s secular nature. He highlighted that although the word itself may not be explicitly stated in the preamble, secularism is inherently embedded in the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.
Supporting his assertion, Justice Joseph referenced Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination, ensure equality of opportunity, and uphold the right to life, respectively. He stressed that even in the absence of the word “secular” in the preamble, the principles of equality enshrined in these articles would remain intact.
Addressing concerns about the omission of “secular” from the preamble, Justice Joseph emphasized that simply erasing the word wouldn’t negate the constitutional commitment to secular values.
Speaking at an event organized by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) as part of a legal education program, Justice Joseph noted that discussions on the preamble occurred towards the end of the Constituent Assembly’s deliberations, after Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion, had already been incorporated into the Constitution. He also highlighted unsuccessful attempts to introduce the term “secularism” during these deliberations, indicating its implicit recognition as a foundational principle.
Furthermore, Justice Joseph underscored the explicit treatment of religion in Articles 25 to 28, particularly emphasizing the provisions related to the “practice, profess, and propagate” aspects outlined in Article 25.
In conclusion, Justice Joseph reiterated that secularism cannot be erased merely by removing the term from the preamble and affirmed the Supreme Court’s recognition of secularism as a fundamental tenet of the Constitution.
