The Preamble to our Constitution, as adopted by the Constituent Assembly, spoke of "We the People of India", making a solemn resolve to constitute India into a "Sovereign Democratic Republic" securing for all its citizens Justice, Liberty and Equality, and promoting among them all Fraternity. Justice is further defined as social, economic and political. Liberty includes liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and Equality means equality of status and of opportunity.
In fact, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity are the most essential concomitants of a truly democratic order and therefore only elucidate the concept of a democratic republic. The ultimate goal is that of "securing the dignity of the individual and unity of the nation."
Thus the preamble serves the purpose of declaring that 'The People of India' are the source of the Constitution, that sovereignty in Indian polity vests in the people and that Indian polity is demarcated with fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to all the people and amity among the people and dignity of the individual and integrity and unity of the nation assured.
The words used in the Preamble our Constitution are some of the noblest. They embody the highest values that human ingenuity and experience have been able to devise thus far. The Oxford University Political Science professor Sir Ernest Barker was so moved by the text that he quoted it as a preface to his treatise and thought that it represented the quintessence of his work. He said : "It seemed to me, when I read it , to state in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the book; and it may accordingly serve as a keynote."
In the Berubari case, the Supreme Court agreed that the Preamble was the key to the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Where the words were found to be vague or their meaning was unclear, help of the Preamble could be taken to understand the intention of the framers and find out whether a particular word was used in a wide or narrow context. Nevertheless, Justice Gajendragarkar said, The Preamble is not the part of the Constitution. Also, it did not confer any substantial powers upon the legislature or other organs of the State. These must have their source in express or implied grant by the provisions of the Constitution.[Also see Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) SCC 109].
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Justice Madholker said that the Preamble had the stamp of "deep deliberation", was marked by precision" and the "framers of the Constitution attached special significance to it ." the Preamble was "an epitome" of the broad feature of the Constitution which wee an amplification or concretisation of the concepts sot out in the Preamble. The earlier Supreme Court opinion regarding the Preamble not being a part of the Constitution perhaps needed reconsideration. Justice Hidyatullah also invoked the Preamble as an aid to construction. It was felt that attention should be paid to the intention of the framers of the Constitution as expressed through the Preamble. In Golak Nath V. State of Punjab, Justice Hidyatullah observed that the Preamble to the Constitution epitomized principles on which the Government was to function. The Preamble was the very "soul of the Constitution- eternal and unalterable." Our Preamble, he said, was a declaration of our faith and belief in certain fundamentals of national life, a standard from which we must not depart and a resolve we must not shake.
As held by the Supreme Court later in Bharti Chandra Bhavan V. State of Mysore (AIR 1970 SC 2042), the scope of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights also could be better understood in the light of the objectives enshrined in the Preamble.
In the Berubari case, it seems, the Supreme Court did not realise that as contradistinguished from a Preamble to an Act which is not discussed or voted in the Houses of the Legislature, the Preamble to our Constitution was fully discussed duly enacted and adopted by the Constituent Assembly just like any other part of the Constitution Assembly just like any other part of the constitution. While putting the Preamble to the final vote, the President of the Assembly had said: "The question is that the Preamble stands part of the Constitution". Appropriately, therefore, the Supreme Court later revised its stand.
In Keshwananda Bharti V. State of Kerala, (1973) 4SCC 225, AIR 1973 SC 1461, the majority of the judges referred to the Constituent Assembly debates an held that the Preamble was the part of the Constitution and contained its basic structure. Justice Sikri said that the legislative history of the preamble justified its importance. The Preamble was not only very much a part of the Constitution, but was of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble".
Any provision of the Constitution could be amended under Article 368 only "within the broad contours of the Preamble and of the Constitution were sought to be traced from the words of the Preamble and it was held that the provisions of the Constitution could not be amended so as to alter the basic elements. Although the basic elements were precisely defined, those mentioned in the Preamble were specifically included.
In the words of the Supreme Court, "the edifice of the Constitution is based upon the basic elements mentioned in the Preamble. If any of these are removed, the structure will not survive and it will not be the Same Constitution or it cannot maintain its identity". Thus, it has been established that the basic elements or features of the Constitution as contained in the Preamble cannot be altered by any amendment under Article 368.
In Bommai v. Union of India, (AIR 1994 SC 1918, JT (1994) SC 215) regarding the dismissal of BJP governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, Justice Ramaswamy said:
"The Preamble of the Constitution is an integral part of the Constitution. Democratic form of government, federal structure, unity and integrity of the nation, secularism social justice and judicial review are basic features of the Constitution."
But, even though the Preamble is now taken to be an inviolable part of the Constitution, it also remains a fact that it is neither a source of any power nor a limitation thereon. First asserted in the Berubari case, this point was reiterated by Justice Mathew in Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2291).
During the Emergency, the Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act of 1976 added to the Preamble the words 'socialist' and 'secular'. Also, 'unity of the nation' was amended to read 'unity and integrity of the Nation'. These qualifying terms, it was felt, were generally clarificatory in nature and did not make any substantial difference to the nature of the polity or the State inasmuch as socialism, secularism and national integrity were, according to the lawmakers, already implicit in the Preamble and in the rest of the Constitution as originally framed.
According to the text of the Preamble as it stands today after the forty-second amendment, the supreme or fundamental constitutional values in which the founding fathers believed, which they wanted to foster among the people of the Republic and which, they hoped, would guide all those who, from generation, were called upon to work the Constitution were:
.Sovereignty
.Socialism
.Secularism
.Democracy
.Republican character
.Justice
.Liberty
.Equality
.Fraternity
.Dignity of the individual, and
.Unity and Integrity of the Nation.
0 comments: