Did Dec 6 2019 mark the first video-recorded (covert-ish) attempt to inject the word 'Liberal' into the Indian constitution?

Video-excerpt source: 09:50.7 to 10:11.9 

in https://youtu.be/ntnF8y5iHTs?t=590

This piece is written on Dec 10 2019. 

Fact: As on Dec 10 2019, neither the word 'Liberal' nor the word 'Liberalism' exists in the Indian constitution. 

At Chennai International Centre, on Dec 06 2019, Salman Khurshid (saab) has been recorded to have made the following statements: 

"Now I think, therefore, Secular, secularism has been thrashed so much that we need to look for another word that doesn't have the baggage. And that word, in legal, in in political philosophy is 'Liberal'. What is it (sic.) take to be a Liberal? A 'Liberal' is a person who says "you have a right to be wrong."" [refer to video-excerpt above; almost verbatim]

On Salman Khurshid's point about 'Secular' and 'Secularism' (in green above), it might not be out of place to be reminded about the following: 

"Appeal Civil 3645 of 1989, Supreme Court (of India) Judgement 11-03-1994: "The term ‘secular’ has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined." (p. 991)

From Salman Khurshid's views about 'Liberal' (in orange above), at least the following questions follow: 

1. In which published legal text (or any other form of accessible media) is 'Liberal' suggested as a replacement word for 'Secular' sans the (undefined?) baggage of the latter?
2. In which published political philosophy text (or any other form of accessible media) or in whose political philosophy theory has the word 'Liberal' been propounded as a replacement for 'Secular', again, sans the (undefined?) baggage of the latter?
3. "A 'Liberal' is a person who says "you have a right to be wrong."": in which (or whose) theory of Liberalism has this definition of a 'Liberal' been recorded before?

I would be grateful to anyone who can provide me answers to questions 1-3 and disprove my hunch that none of these have been published anywhere before. 

If having an imprecise term such as 'secular' (which, according to one Supreme court judgement cited above, is "a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition") in the Constitution is not bad enough already, Khurshid's suggestion vis-a-vis 'secular' and 'liberal', on counts of citing legal and political philosophy, should perhaps pique at least some careful students of contemporary Indian (and perhaps international) law and political philosophy.