Distinguish Indian secularism from the Western model. How have Parliament and the Supreme Court shaped its meaning since 1976?

The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 added the word "Secular" to the Preamble [2]. The Western model builds a wall between religion and the State. Indian secularism instead keeps a "principled distance" from all religions, and Parliament and the courts have developed this idea since 1976.

Indian vs Western Secularism

• Engagement, not separation: The US separates Church and State, and French laïcité keeps religion out of public life. India follows Sarva Dharma Samabhava, equal respect for all religions. Law Minister H. R. Gokhale invoked this idea in the Rajya Sabha in 1976 [1].
• Power to reform: Western states stay out of religion. Art. 25(2) lets the Indian State regulate secular activities linked to religion and open Hindu temples to all classes [3].
• Group rights: Western secularism centres on the individual. Arts. 29–30 also protect minorities' cultural and educational rights [3].
• Funding: The State may aid religious institutions. It may not tax people to promote a particular religion (Art. 27) or impart religious instruction in wholly State-funded institutions (Art. 28) [3].

Role of Parliament

• 42nd Amendment: It made an implicit value explicit. The Hindi term "Dharma Nirapekshata" was kept, and "Asampradayik" (non-communal) was rejected [1][2].
• 44th Amendment (1978): The freely elected Janata Parliament kept the word. This gave it political approval after the Emergency.
• Places of Worship Act, 1991: It fixed the religious character of places of worship as on 15 August 1947.
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: It made instant triple talaq a criminal offence, putting gender justice before personal-law practice.

Role of the Supreme Court

• S. R. Bommai (1994): It declared secularism part of the basic structure and allowed action under Art. 356 against a state government that acts against it.
• Ismail Faruqui (1994): It read secularism as equal treatment of all faiths. The 2024 Court relied on this reading [4].
• Shayara Bano (2017): It struck down instant triple talaq, so personal-law practices must meet constitutional standards.
• Balram Singh (2024): It dismissed the challenge, which came 44 years after the amendment. It held that Arts. 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30 already gave the Constitution a secular character, and that Art. 368 covers the Preamble [4].

Parliament and the Court have built a secularism based on equal respect and the State's duty to reform, not strict separation. Applying it evenly to all faiths and enforcing it without bias would keep the Preamble's ideal of fraternity and the "unity and integrity of the Nation" alive.