The founding fathers did not want the Constitution to be wedded to any particular political ideology or ism or to be limited by any economic doctrine. They did not, therefore, agree to include any reference inter alia to socialism. But, the Preamble did mention the resolve to secure to all citizens economic justice and equality of status and opportunity. And, the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced the word "Socialist" to qualify our "Republic". The text of the Preamble as amended gives almost the highest place of honour to the objective of 'Socialism'. It is mentioned next only to 'Sovereign'. However, the term 'Socialism' has not been defined by the Constitution.
The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Bill, attempted to define 'Socialist' to mean "free from all forms of exploitation-social, economic and political." The Bill was, however, finally adopted as the 44th Amendment without the definition. "Socialism" is difficult to define. It has meant different things to different people and is hardy left with any one definite connotation. Dictionary meaning of the word would imply, in full and in part, placing means of production and distribution in public hands, i.e. under public (meaning 'State') ownership and /or control as against private ownership and free enterprise.
Socialism meant elimination of inequality in income and status and standards of living. Also, after addition of the word 'Socialist' in the Preamble, the courts in their interpretation of the Constitution could expectedly lean more in favour of nationalisation and state ownership of private property, industry, etc. and the right to equal pay for equal work. [Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Dharwad Employees v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396; Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859]. But, the new economic policy of liberalization, free market competition, entry of foreign companies, disinvestment in public sector undertakings, privatization etc. hardly qualified to be considered socialistic by any definition.
The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Bill, attempted to define 'Socialist' to mean "free from all forms of exploitation-social, economic and political." The Bill was, however, finally adopted as the 44th Amendment without the definition. "Socialism" is difficult to define. It has meant different things to different people and is hardy left with any one definite connotation. Dictionary meaning of the word would imply, in full and in part, placing means of production and distribution in public hands, i.e. under public (meaning 'State') ownership and /or control as against private ownership and free enterprise.
Socialism meant elimination of inequality in income and status and standards of living. Also, after addition of the word 'Socialist' in the Preamble, the courts in their interpretation of the Constitution could expectedly lean more in favour of nationalisation and state ownership of private property, industry, etc. and the right to equal pay for equal work. [Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Dharwad Employees v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396; Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859]. But, the new economic policy of liberalization, free market competition, entry of foreign companies, disinvestment in public sector undertakings, privatization etc. hardly qualified to be considered socialistic by any definition.
0 comments: