The Supreme Court while hearing a batch of pleas seeking deletion of terms 'socialists' and 'secular' in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, said that secularism is a "core feature" and part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The top court said that the  definitions to these terms need not be looked at through a western lens.

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar heard the pleas moved by Subramanian Swamy and Ashwini Upadhyay. 

The bench while hearing the arguments said that the term "socialism" should not necessarily be interpreted in western context and the term can also mean that there has to be an equal opportunity for all. 

The bench was hearing the pleas that challenged the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution that was done by the Indira Gandhi government during Emergency. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appearing for petitioners argued that the amendment was not debated in Parliament.

At this point Justice Khanna asked "You don't want India to be secular?"

Advocate Jain replied that "we are not saying that India is not secular, we are challenging the amendment." Another petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that the amendment was made during the time when national emergency was in force. 

The top court however said that the founding fathers always envisaged India as a secular country which was evident from the Articles inserted in the Constitution by them. Which the court said was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in judgments from time to time.

"If we look at the right to equality and word fraternity used in the Constitution as well as the rights under Part III (fundamental rights), there is a clear indication that secularism has been held as the core feature of the Constitution...When secularism was debated, there was only the French model. The Supreme Court has stuck down statutes which go against secularism. You may look at Article 25," Justice Khanna remarked.

Justice Khanna further said that when it comes to "Socialism," India has not followed the Western concept.

Advocate Jain quoted BR Ambedkar and said that he had condemned 'socialism' as it curtails liberty.

"Has liberty been curtailed?" Justice Khanna asked.

Subramanian Swamy however argued that the amendment is incorrect as it makes changes without changing the date on the Preamble. The bench agreed to examine the matter on this issue and listed the matter for further hearing on November 18. However, the top court refused to issue notice on the pleas.