BJP MP Bhim Singh speaks in the Rajya Sabha during the ongoing winter session of Parliament in New Delhi on December 5, 2025. Photo: Sansad TV/ANI Video Grab
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 said here, introducing a private member’s bill in the upper house to remove the words.
Mr. Singh, who introduced The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (Amendment to Preamble) in the Rajya Sabha on Friday, said the words were creating “confusion” and were not part of the original Constitution.
“I have tabled a private member’s bill amending the preamble of the constitution, deleting the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’… The original constitution adopted in 1949, which has been in force since 1950, did not contain these two words. Mrs. Indira Gandhi added these two words to the constitution during the Emergency in 1926, when no amendment was made in Parliament. Mr. 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 was added later… The Constitution should remain in its original form,” he said.
Mr Singh said the Constituent Assembly had also discussed the issue. “The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr BR Ambedkar, gave the answer. He said that the structure of the Constitution of India is such that it will make the country secular. He said that (the inclusion of the word) is not needed…,” Mr Singh said.
“The word ‘socialist’ was also discussed. Ambedkar replied that the constitutional 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,” he said.
‘Designed to Calm’
A BJP MP claimed that the 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 the Muslims. It is unnecessary. It is not required, it only creates confusion,” he claimed.
Asked what he expected from the move, as only a handful of private member’s bills have been passed over the decade, he said: “We understand that the bill may not necessarily be passed, but it would bring the issue to the attention of the government and the people.
He accused the opposition of “politics of appeasement” and emphasized that even though the opposition parties may call the bill an attack on the constitution, it is an attempt to return the constitution to its original form. “Was India secular before 1976 or not? Did Nehru ji, Lal Bahadur Shastri or Indira Gandhi run a communal government? Why were these words required then?” he asked.
The bill calls for the removal of the words “secular” and “socialist” and will not affect any fundamental rights or other provisions of the constitution.
A private member’s bill is a legislative proposal presented in parliament by a member of parliament who is not a minister. Only 14 Private Members’ Bills have been passed in the history of the Indian Parliament, and none have been passed by both Houses since 1970.
Published – 06 Dec 2025 20:42 IST
