Open Access Research Article
PREAMBLE THE DIAMOND OF THE COSNTITUTION by: JOEL JOSEPH
Published Paper
Article Details
PREAMBLE THE DIAMOND OF THE COSNTITUTION
Authored
by: JOEL JOSEPH 2050418
BBL5E1
School of Law, Christ deemed to be University
IS PREAMBLE A PART OF CONSTITUTION
The constitution of India was framed by a Constituent
Assembly. This Assembly was an indirectly elected body. It had laid down certain ideals to be included in the
Constitution. These ideals included commitment
to democracy, guarantee to all people of India- Justice, Equality and
Freedom. It had also proclaimed that India
will be a Sovereign Democratic Republic.
The Constitution of India begins with a Preamble. The
Preamble contains the ideals, objectives and basic principles of the Constitution. The salient features of the
Constitution have evolved directly and indirectly from these objectives which flow from the Preamble.
PREAMBLE
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
HISTORY: It
is interesting to know that the Preamble, though the Constitution opens with
it, was not the first to come into
existence. It was the last piece of Drafting adopted by the Constituent
Assembly at the end of the first reading of the Constitution and then seated
in the beginning of the Constitution. The motion to adopt the Preamble was moved on 17th
October, 1949. Several amendments
were suggested to
the Preamble but they all were negated. At the end, the President moved the
motion- “That the Preamble stands
part of the Constitution.” The motion was adopted
|
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PREMBLE
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute
India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST
SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship; EQUALITY of status and of
opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the
unity and integrity of the Nation;
|
on November 2, 1946. The Preamble was added to the Constitution.[1]
|
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this
twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
|
One of the members of the Constituent Assembly (Pundit Thakur
Das Bhargav) rose to poetic
heights
when he said, "The Preamble
is the most precious part of the Constitution. It is the soul of the Constitution. It is a key to the
Constitution. It is a jewel set in the Constitution."
Preamble is an introductory statement, stating the aims
and objectives of the constitution. Accordingly, the preamble to the Indian constitution spells out the basic
philosophy contained in the body of the Indian
Constitution. Reading through the Preamble, one can see the purpose that
it serves, namely, the declaration of (1) the source of
the constitution, (2) a statement of its objectives and (3) the date of its adoption.
The Preamble, in brief, explains the
objectives of the Constitution in two ways: one, about the structure of the governance and the other, about the ideals
to be achieved in independent India. It is because of this, the Preamble is considered to be the key of
the Constitution.
Preamble as such is widely accepted as the quintessence
or soul and spirit of a constitution, as it embodies the fundamentals and the basic of the constitution as well as
the vision and commitment of a newly liberated nation
or people after its passing
through the inevitable birth pangs of national independence from an oppressive and colonial regime.
The objectives, which are laid down in the Preamble, are:
1. Description of Indian State as Sovereign,
Socialist, Secular, Democratic
Republic. (Socialist, Secular added by 42nd Amendment, 1976).
2. Provision
to all the citizens of India i.e.,
a) Justice
social, economic and political
b) Liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
c) Equality of
status and opportunity
d) Fraternity
assuring dignity of the individual
and unity and integrity of the nation.
“We,
the people of India”
It is the resolve of the people
if India to constitute India into Sovereign, Democratic, Republic. From the Preamble of the Constitution it
is clear that the framers attached importance to the sovereignty of the people.[2] The ideas reassert the sovereignty and paramountcy of the people’s will
over everything. The idea of republic indicates
the representative character
of its sovereign democracy. It means that the absolute power vested in
the people of India under the Constitution is
to be exercised by them through their duly elected representative in the
various union and states legislatures.[3]
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is one of the foremost elements
of any independent State. It means absolute
independence, i.e., a government which is not controlled by any other power : internal or external. A country cannot have its own
constitution without being sovereign. India is a sovereign country. It is free from external control. It can
frame its policies. India is free to formulate its own foreign policy. “Sovereignty” is therefore a term
of art rather than a legal expression capable of a precise definition.[4]
Socialist
The word socialist was not there in the Preamble of the
Constitution in its original form. In 1976, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution incorporated ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’, in the Preamble.
The word ‘Socialism’ had been
used in the context of economic planning. It signifies major role in the economy. It also means commitment to
attain ideals like removal of inequalities, provision of minimum basic necessities to all, equal pay for equal work. In
the Directive Principles of the State Policy,
these ideals have been incorporated as well as partly, implemented in the
Constitution.
Socialism is implicit in the Preamble and the directive
principle of the Constitution. The term “economic
justice” in the Preamble denotes nothing but India’s resolve to bring
socio-economic revolution. The
Directive Principles, particularly Article 39 (b) and (c) of Constitution are
charters of social and economic
liberties of the people. The word ‘socialism’ has, however, no definite meaning. It has been invariably used in
both types of Constitutions- democratic and communistic. Generally, the term implies a system of government in which the
means of production is wholly or partially
controlled by the State. India’s socialism is, however, a democratic socialism
and not a ‘communistic socialism’.
For this purpose, the preamble has combined both the words, Socialism and Democracy in the Preamble. This
combination of words: socialism and democracy have been criticized by many writers. It has been said that these cannot co-exist. This criticism is, however, not justified in view of the gradual
change of thinking of the modern socialists. Their thinking is in line with the idea of welfare state which
would prevent only the excess of exploitation and free competition without destroying individual initiative and without
detriment to the political freedoms. It is thus the marriage of democracy and socialism which has been embedded in the Indian
Constitution.[5]
In
Excel
Wear v. Union of India,[6] the
S.C. considered the effect of the word ‘socialist’ in the Preamble. The
Court held that addition of the word “Socialist” might enable the courts to
lean more in favor of nationalization and state ownership
of an industry. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,6 the S.C. held that the basic
framework of socialism is to provide
a decent standard
of life to the working
people and especially provide security form cradle to grave. This amongst others are on economic
side envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of income.
Secularism
In the context of secularism in India, it is said that ‘India is neither religious, nor irreligious
nor antireligious.’ It implies
that in India there will be no ‘State’ religion – the ‘State’ will not support any particular religion out of public
fund.
This
has two implications,
a) every
individual is free to believe in, and practice, any religion he/ she belongs
to, and,
b) State will
not discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of religion.
The concept of secularism was already implicit in the
Constitution, “liberty of… belief, faith and
worship”. Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution guarantee to every
person the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propogate
religion. In St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat,[7] the SC has held, “although the words ‘SECULAR
STATE’ are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution
but there can be no doubt that Constitution-makers wanted to establish such a
state” and accordingly Articles 25 to
28 have been included in the Constitution.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[8] the supreme
court held that “secularism is the basic feature of
the Constitution.”
In Aruna Roy v. Union of India,[9] the Supreme Court
has
said
that
Secularism
has
a
positive
meaning that is developing, understanding and respect towards different
religions.
There
is no mysticism in the secular character of the State. Secularism is not
anti-God; it treats alike the
devout, the agnostic and the atheist. It eliminates God from the matters of the
state and ensures that no one shall
be discriminated against on the ground of religion.[10]
Democratic
Republic
The last line of the Preamble
says ‘…. Hereby Adopt, Enact And Give To Ourselves
This Constitution’. In fact
the Democratic principles of the country flow from this memorable last line of the Preamble. Democracy
is generally known as government
of the people, by the people and for the people. Effectively this means that the Government is elected by the people,
it is responsible and
accountable to the people. The democratic principles are highlighted with the
provisions of universal adult
franchise, elections, fundamental rights, and responsible government.
The
Preamble also declares India as a Republic. It means that the head of the State
is the President who is indirectly
elected and he is not a hereditary ruler as in case of the British Monarch.
Justice
Justice
promises to give people what they are entitled to in terms of basic rights to
food, Clothing, housing, participation in the decision-making and living with dignity as Human Beings.
The Preamble covers all
these dimensions of justice – social, economic and political. Besides, the granting of political justice in the form
of universal adult franchise or the representative form of democracy.
Liberty
The
Preamble also mentions about liberty of thought and expression. These freedoms
have been guaranteed in the
Constitution through the Fundamental Rights. Though freedom from want has not been guaranteed in the Fundamental
Rights, certain directives to the State have been mentioned in the Directive Principles.
The importance of
the judiciary in India in this connection must also be highlighted in this
country. In this connection reference
may be made to two decisions of the Supreme Court viz., Govt of A.P. and others vs. P. Laxmi Devi[11]
and Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra and others[12]. In these cases, the Supreme Court has
emphasized the importance of liberty for progress, and has observed that the judiciary must act as guardians of the liberties of the people,
protecting them against
executive,
or even legislative arbitrariness or despotism. Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity are not to be treated as
separate entities but a trinity. They form a union in that and to divorce one
from the other is to defeat the very
purpose of Democracy.[13]
Equality
Equality is considered to be the essence of modern democratic
ideology. The Constitution makers placed
the ideals of equality in a place of pride in the Preamble. All kinds of
inequality based on the concept of
rulers and the ruled or on the basis of caste and gender, were to be
eliminated. All citizens of India
should be treated equally and extended equal protection of law without any discrimination based on caste, creed,
birth, religion, sex etc.
Similarly equality of opportunities implies that regardless
of the socio-economic situations into which
one is born, he/she will have the same chance as everybody else to develop his/
her talents and choose means of
livelihood.
Fraternity,
Dignity, Unity and Integrity
In the background
of India’s multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi- religious society and keeping
in view the partition of the country,
the framers of the Constitution were very much concerned about the unity and integrity of our
newly independent country. There was a need for harmonious co-existence among various religions, linguistic, cultural and economic groups.
Inclusion of phrases
like ‘dignity of individuals’, ‘fraternity among people’ and ‘unity and integrity of the
nation’
in the Preamble highlight such a need.
“Some people have started
saying that to combat terrorism, it is necessary to curtail civil liberties and
introduce draconian laws. To my mind,
this is a dangerous idea, and hence it is necessary to explain the
importance of liberty and democracy”- said by Justice Markandey Katju.
Importance of Preamble
Imagine reading a beautifully written book without an
introduction or preface or say without an Index, obviously
it would create a mess or ambiguity
in the mind of a reader who would pick up that book for the first time. Similarly,
the Preamble to a Constitution embodies the fundamental values and the philosophy, on which the Constitution is based,
and the aims and objectives, which the
founding fathers of the Constitution enjoined the polity to strive to achieve.
The importance and utility of the Preamble
has been pointed out in several decisions of the Supreme Court of India.
The preamble to an Act sets out the main objectives which the legislation is intended to achieve.[14] It
is a sort of introduction to the statute and many a times very helpful to
understand the policy and legislative
intent.
It
expresses
“what
we
had
thought
or
dreamt
for
so
long”.[15] It embodies in
a
solemn form all the ideas and aspirations for which the country had struggled
during the British Regime.[16]
Preamble being unenforceable in the court of law, but it
successfully brings out and states the objects
which Constitution seeks to establish and promote and also aids the legal
interpretation wherever ambiguousness
tend to appear.
Combining the ideals of political, social and economic
democracy with that of equality
and fraternity, the Preamble
seeks to establish what Mahatma Gandhi described as The India of my dreams, namely
-“An India, in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country
in whose making an effective
voice? an India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony”.
The preamble serves the following points:-
1.
It indicates the sources from where the constitution
has com viz. the people of India.
2.
It contains the enacting clause which brings into force
the
constitution.
3.
It declares the freedoms which the people of India intended to secure it all citizens and the basic
type of government and polity which was to be established.
How far is preamble
useful in interpreting the Constitution
The
Preamble is the key to open the mind of the makers. But it does not mean that
the Preamble can override the
express provisions of the Act. In Beruberi’s
case the Supreme Court held that the
Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and therefore it could never
be regarded as a source of any substantive powers. Such powers
are expressly granted
in the body of Constitution. What is true about the powers is equally true
about the prohibitions. It has limited application and can be resorted to where there is any ambiguity
in the statute. If the terms used in the Constitution are ambiguous or capable of two meanings in
interpreting them some assistance may be taken from the objectives enshrined in the Constitution and the construction
which fits the Preamble may be preferred.
But in Kesavananda Bharati’s
case,[17] the Supreme Court rejected
the above view and held that the Preamble is the part of Constitution.
Though in any ordinary statute not much importance is attached to the Preamble, all importance has to be attached to the Preamble
in a Constitution Statute.
Silri, C.J., observed, “no authority has been refered before us to establish
the propositions that what is true
about the powers is equally true about the powers is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations. Even from the Preamble
limitations have been derived in some cases. It seems to me that the Preamble of our Constitution is of extreme
importance and the Constitution
should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision
expressed in the Preamble.”
In fact, the Preamble
was relied on in imposing
implied limitations on the amending
power of Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. In that case it was held that the “basic elements” in the Preamble cannot be amended under Article 368 of Constitution. In Randhir Singh v Union
of India[18] the Supreme Court relying on the Preamble and Article 14 and 16 held that Article 39(a)
envisages a constitutional right of “equal pay for equal work” for both men and
women.
Can preamble be amended
under Article 368
This question was raised for the first time before the
Supreme Court in the historic case of Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala.21 In
that
case
the
Attorney-General
argued
that
by
virtue
of
the
amending power in Article 368 even the
Preamble can be amended. It was said that since the Preamble was a part of the Constitution it could be amended like any other provisions of the Constitution. The petitioners, however, contended that the amending
power in Article 368 is limited. Preamble creates an implied limitation on the power of amendment. The
Preamble contains the basic elements or the fundamental features of our Constitution. Consequently, amending power
cannot be used so as to destroy or damage these basic features mentioned
in the Preamble. It was urged that Preamble cannot be amended
as it is not a part of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court however held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and, therefore, on this point the Beruberi opinion was wrong.
On the question whether the Preamble can be amended the
majority held that since the Preamble is the part of the Constitution it can be amended but subject to this
condition that the “basic feature” in the Preamble cannot be amended. The Court said, “The edifice of our Constitution is based upon the basic
elements mentioned in the Preamble.
If any of these elements are removed the structure will not survive and it will not be same Constitution or it cannot maintain its identity. The Preamble
declares that the people of India resolved
to constitute their country into a Sovereign Democratic Republic. No one can
suggest that these words and
expressions are ambiguous in any manner. An amending power cannot be
interpreted so as to confer power on
the Parliament to take away any of these fundamental and basic characteristics
of policy.” It is hence contended
that this view of the court is correct. The amending power cannot change the Constitution in such a way that it ceases to be a ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’. It can only be done by
wrecking Constitution.
Whether or not is
Preamble is a part of constitution?
It has been highly a matter of arguments and
discussions in past that whether Preamble should be treated as a part of constitution or not, that
means whether or not a citizen of a nation to which he is subject to can challenge in the court of law if in case
his rights have been infringed which were mentioned in the Preamble. And if not, then whether The
Preamble is merely a preface or introduction piece of page in the book of our Constitution. And also whether the Preamble is a part of
the Constitution, would depend the resolution
of the next question, which follows as a corollary- whether the Preamble can be
amended, if at all.
Preamble, If a part of
the Constitution
The vexed question whether the Preamble is a part of the
Constitution or not was dealt with in two leading cases on the subject:
On the answer to the primary question- whether the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, would depend the resolution of the next question, which
follows as a corollary- whether the Preamble can be amended, if at all.
Beruberi case was the Presidential Reference “under Article 143(1)
of the Constitution of India
on the implementation of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement Relating to
Beruberi Union and Exchange of Enclaves” which
came up for consideration by a bench consisting of eight judges headed by the
Chief Justice B.P. Singh. Justice
Gajendragadkar delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. The court ruled
out that the Preamble to the
Constitution, containing the declaration made by the people of India in
exercise of their sovereign will, no
doubt is “a key to open the mind of the makers” which may show the general purposes for which they made the several provisions
in the Constitution but nevertheless the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.
Willoughby
on American Constitution was quoted as saying-
“It has never been
regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States, or on any of
its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly
granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied
from those so granted”.
The holding in Beruberi case has been succinctly summed up later by Shelat and Grover,
JJ. in Keasavanada case (vide para 534) as under:
1.
A Preamble serves as a key to open the minds of the makers,
and shows the general purpose for which they made the several provisions
in the Constitution;
2.
The Preamble is not a part of our Constitution;
3.
It is not a source of the several powers conferred on
government under the provisions of the Constitution.
4.
Such powers embrace those expressly granted in the
body of the Constitution ‘and such as may be
implied from those granted’;
5.
What is true about the powers is equally true about
the prohibitions and limitations;
6.
The Preamble did not indicate the assumption that the
first part of preamble postulates a very serious
limitation on one of the very important attributes of sovereignty viz. ceding
territory as a result of the exercise
of the sovereign power of the State of treaty-making and on the result of ceding a part of the territory.
“On
a parity of reasoning we are of the opinion that the Preamble cannot prohibit or control in any way or impose any implied prohibitions or limitations on the bar to amend the
Constitution contained in Article 368”.
Bachawat,
J. observed-
“Moreover the Preamble
cannot control the unambiguous language
of the articles of the
Constitution”.
It
is a matter of regret, yet a matter of record, that constitutional history was
overlooked by the eminent judges
constituting the Bench answering the Presidential Reference in Beruberi case. The motion adopted by the Constituent Assembly stated in so many words that the Preamble
stands as a part of the Constitution. The error came to be
corrected in Kesavananda case where
the majority specifically ruled that
the Preamble was as much a part of the Constitution as any other provision
therein.
Kesavananda Bharati case has
created history. For the first time, a bench of 13 judges assembled and sat in its original jurisdiction hearing the
writ petition. Thirteen judges placed on record 11 separate opinions. To the extent necessary for the purpose of
the Preamble, it can be safely concluded that the majority in Kesavanada Bharati case leans in favor of
holding,
(i)
that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a
apart of Constitution;
(ii)
that the Preamble is not a source of power nor a
source of limitations or prohibitions;
(iii)
the Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statutes, also in the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.
In
the words of Jagan Mohan Reddy, J.-
“The Preamble to the Constitution which our Founding Fathers
have, after the Constitution was framed, finally
settled to conform
to the ideals and aspirations of the people embodied in that
instrument, have in ringing tone declared the purposes and objectives which the Constitution was intended no sub serve.”
Even Willoughby dealing with value and use of Preamble has
started:
“Special significance has at various times been attached to
several of the expressions employed
in the Preamble of the Constitution. The American authors recognize the use of the Preamble
to ascertain the essential concepts underlying the Constitution.”
An interesting argument advanced in Kesavananda case has been noted by Y.V. Chandrachud,J. that the Preamble may be a part of the Constitution
but is not a provision of the Constitution and therefore, we cannot amend the Constitution so as to
destroy the Preamble. Discarding the submissions Chandrachud, J. held that it was impossible to accept the
contention that the Preamble is not a provision of the Constitution; it is a part of the Constitution and is
not outside the reach of the Constituent Assembly leaves no scope for this contention. It is transparent from
the proceedings that the Preamble was put to vote and was actually voted upon to form a part of the Constitution.[22]
The Preamble records
like
a
sunbeam
certain
glowing
thoughts and concepts of history and the argument is that in its very nature it
is unamendable because no present or
future, however mighty, can assume the power to amend the true facts of past
history.[23]
Kesavanada Bharati case is a milestone and also a
turning point in the constitutional history of India. D.G. Palekar, J. held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and, therefore, is amendable under Article
368. He termed submission that the Fundamental Rights are an elaboration of the Preamble,
as “an overstatement and half- truth”.
Undoubtedly, the Constitution is intended to be a vehicle by which the goals
set out are hoped to be reached.
In the opinion of H.R.
Khanna, J. the preamble is a part of the Constitution and walks before the Constitution”[24]. S.D. Dwivedi, J. expressing his concurrence with the conclusion
arrived at by A.N. Ray,
J., held that the Preamble was a part of the Constitution because the heading
“The Constitution of India” was
placed above the Preamble. The Preamble cannot be a source of reading any
inherent and implied limitations on the amending power.[25]
It is noteworthy that Justice Dwivedi has held the Preamble to be a
part of the Constitution and then also referred to it as a provision of it.
In view of the provisions contained in Article 368 of
the Constitution, Justice Beg discarded the contention that a creature
of the Constitution could not possibly possess
the power to create a recreate the Constitution
as Article 368 expressly provides for the expansion or diminution of the scope
of the powers of amendment. The
amending power so as to meet the challenges of the times offered by rapidly
changing social, political, economic,
national and international conditions and situations was kept wide, elastic and expansible by the
Constitution
makers.30
In conclusion, Beg
J.
held
that
there
was
no
limitation
on
the powers of constitutional amendment
found in Article 368.
CRITIQUE
AND CONCLUSION
A Preamble indicates
only the general
purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution.
It cannot be regarded and has never been regarded as the source of any source
of any substantive power conferred on
the Government or any of its departments. Although, it is permissible to look at the Preamble for understanding the import of various clauses
contained in the bill, full effect should be given to the express
provisions of the bill, even though they appear to go beyond the terms of Preamble.
Where the language of the Act is clear, Preamble shall be
dis-regarded. Where the object or meaning of an inactment is vague or unclear the Preamblle must be resorted to
explain it. It has been rather rightly put up
in the case of Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union Of India[26]
that, “where very general language
is used in an inactment,
which, it is clear, must be intended to have a limited application, the Preamble must be used to indicate to what particular
instances the inactment is intended to apply”. However, it can never be a source of Power.
A Preamble provides significant help in the interpretation of
the Constitution when words actually are ambiguous.
Under such circumstances it is the key to open the minds of the makers of the
Act. But if the language of the
Article is sufficiently clear, it is not to be interpreted in the light of the
Preamble in preference to the obvious
meaning thereof. The objectives in the Preamble are just a part of basic
structure of the Constitution and
nothing more than that. So, Preamble cannot be amended so as to destroy the objectives, but also cannot be used as a
law to judge people on.
BIBLOGRAPHY
Books:-
Jain, M.P.,
Indian Constitutional Law, 738,
(Nagpur:
Wadhwa
&
Co.,
1987,
4th
edition, reprint 2002).
Pandey, Dr.
J.N., The Contitutional Law of India, (Central
Law Agency, 48th edition, 2011)
The preamble of the constitution “the spirit and the backbone
of the constitution of India”.
By R.C.Lahoti.
The
preamble of the constitution “An insight and comparison with other
constitution”. By Aparajita Baruah.
Saharay,
H.K., The Constitution of India,
(Kolkata, Eastern Law House,3rd Edition).
Manohar, Sujata V., Constitutional Law of India, (Lucknow, Eastern Book Company, Third Edition, 2010).
Basu, D.D.,
Shorter Constitution of India, (Nagpur,
Lexis
Nexis
Butterworths
Wadhwa,
14th Edition
reprint, 2010).
Kashyap,
Subhash C., Constitutional Law of India, (Universal Law Publishing Co., 2008).
Lahoti, R.C., Preamble-
the spirit and backbone of the constitution of India, (Lucknow, Eastern book
Company, 2004).
Starke: International Law, 11th
Edition, p. 91;
see
also
Lloyd:
Introduction to jurisprudence,
5th edition, ELBS, pp. 309-314 for six
meaning of Sovereihgnity.
Orgad, Liav, The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation (October 3, 2010). International Journal of Constitutional Law, I-CON,
Forthcoming.
Website:-
http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/714.abstract http://www.viniyogparivar.org/Essays/Constitution%20of%20India.pdf
Cases Referred:-
Motilal
v Uttar Pradesh Government AIR 1951 ALL 257
Ram Nandan v State AIR 1959 ALL 101
Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC
25.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC
130.
St. Xaviers College v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) SCC
1.
Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC
3176.
Govt of A.P. and others vs. P. Laxmi Devi and Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
JT
2008 (11) SC 609.
Amedabad St. Xaviers College V State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389
S.S. Bola v B.D. Sardana (1997) 8 SCC 522.
Subba Rao. C.J., in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami- Constituent
Assembly Debates. Vol 10, 417.
Shelat and Grover, JJ., in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461.
Randhir Singh v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC
879: (1982) 1 SCC 618. Kesavanada
Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Golak
Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762.
Henning Jacobson V. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) 197 U.S. 11
Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union Of India, AIR 1961 SC 954.
[1] CAD, Vol. X,
1949, pp. 429, 456.
[2] Motilal v Uttar Pradesh Government AIR 1951 ALL 257 (Paras 185, 188) (FB) affirmed in State of W.B. V Anwar Ali AIR 1952
SC 75.
[4] Starke: International Law, 11th Edition, p. 91; see also Lloyd: Introduction to jurisprudence, 5th edition, ELBS, pp. 309-314 for six meaning of Sovereihgnity.
[14] Subba Rao.
C.J., in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
[17] Kesavanada
Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
[20] (1973) 4 SCC
225.
Article Information
PREAMBLE THE DIAMOND OF THE COSNTITUTION by: JOEL JOSEPH
Authors: JOEL JOSEPH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/25
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.