Tag: #Liberty

State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang

Posted on

Case Number

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22nd June 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 613 of 1965. Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1965, decided on the 6th day of September 1965.

Equivalent Citation

1966 AIR 424 1966 SCR (1) 702.

Bench

  • Hon’ble Justice K. Subba Rao.
  • Hon’ble Justice K.N Wanchoo.
  • Hon’ble Justice J.C Shah.
  • Hon’ble Justice S.M Sikri.
  • Hon’ble Justice V. Ramaswami.

Decided On

06/09/1965

Introduction

The law on the rights of detainees has been a developing one. It involves the most extreme disgrace that a nation like India doesn’t have classified laws on the rights of prisoners. There is additionally no thorough regulation to manage prisoners’ privileges and direct their lead while in jail. Notwithstanding, the legal executive of the nation has given due acknowledgement to the convicts and held their fundamental rights time once more. Without exhaustive regulation, it has figured out how to start trends and standards maintaining the different privileges of detainees that guide as well as tie every one of the courts in India.

Brief Facts

Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri was kept by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 30(1)(b) of the Protection of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay Region Jail to keep him from acting in a way biased to the safeguard of India, public security, and support of the public request. With the consent of the public authority, Sanzgiri composed a book in Marathi named “Anucha Antarangaat” (Inside the Atom). The High Court passed judgment on investigating the book’s chapter-by-chapter guide and reasoned that it managed the hypothesis of elementary particles equitably and expected to teach individuals and disperse information regarding the quantum hypothesis. The book was absolutely of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias in the protection of India, public wellbeing, or upkeep of public request The High Court of Bombay held that the request for confinement didn’t control Sangir’s social equality and freedoms and that he could carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his detainment. The State of Maharashtra pursued against the High Court’s organization, The Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951, which regulates the particulars of Sanzgirt’s detainment, doesn’t permit him to compose a book and send it out of jail for distribution. Be that as it may, the Maharashtra Government didn’t depend on this standard, and it just applies to letters to and from security detainees and doesn’t control the conveying of jail books for distribution.

Issues before the Court

Whether the High Court’s choice that Sanzgiri’s book was simply of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias in the guard of India, public wellbeing, or upkeep of public request was right, and whether Sanzgini’s social equality and freedoms were controlled by the request for confinement?

Arguments

The request passed by the High Court was right, and the appeal fizzled and was excused.

The High Court decided to survey the book’s chapter-by-chapter list and inferred that it managed the hypothesis of elementary particles equitably and expected to instruct individuals and scatter information regarding the quantum hypothesis. The book was absolutely of logical interest and couldn’t make any bias against the guard of India, public wellbeing, or support of the public request. The High Court of Bombay held that the request for detainment didn’t control Sanzgari’s social equality and freedoms and that he could carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his confinement.

The Bombay States of Detainment Request, 1951, which directs the particulars of Sanzgini’s confinement, doesn’t permit him to compose a book and send it out of the jail for distribution. Nonetheless, the Maharashtra Government didn’t depend on this standard, and it just applies to letters to and from security detainees and doesn’t direct the conveying of jail books for distribution. Whether or not this standard applies to the conveying of jail books for distribution might emerge on the off chance that a suitable condition is forced limiting the freedom of an accused in this.

The decision of the Court

  1. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, who has been kept by the Public authority of Maharashtra under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Safeguard of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay District Jail to keep him from acting in a way biased to the protection of India, public wellbeing and support of the public request, has composed, with the consent of the said Government, a book in Marathi under the title “Anucha Antarangaat” (Inside the Atom). The learned Adjudicators of the High Court who had gone through the chapter-by-chapter guide of the book offered their viewpoint on the book subsequently:

    “We are satisfied that the manuscript book deals with the theory of elementary particles objectively. The manuscript does not purport to be a research work, but it purports to be a book written to educate the people and disseminate knowledge regarding quantum theory”.
  2. The book is, thusly, simply of logical interest and it couldn’t make any bias in the protection of India, public security, or upkeep of public request. In September 1964, the accused applied to the public authority of Maharashtra looking for consent to send the composition out of the prison for distribution yet the Government by its letter, dated Walk 27, 1965, dismissed the solicitation He again applied to the Administrator, Arthur Street Jail, for authorization to send the original copy out and that also was dismissed. From that point, he documented a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution In the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay for guiding the Province of Maharashtra to allow him to convey the composition of the book composed by him for its possible distribution. The Public authority of Maharashtra in the counter-sworn statement didn’t affirm that the distribution of the said book would be biased to the objects of the Protection of India Act, yet asserted that the Public authority was not legally necessary to allow the accused to distribute books while in detainment. The High Court of Bombay held that the social equality and freedoms of a resident were not the slightest bit checked by the request for detainment and that it was generally open to the revenue to carry on his exercises inside the circumstances overseeing his confinement. It further held that no standards were disallowing an accused from sending a book outside the prison to get it distributed. In that view, the High Court guided the Public authority to permit the composition book to be sent by the accused to his significant other for its possible distribution. The Province of Maharashtra has favoured the current allure against the expressed request of the Great Court.
  3. The conflicts of the took in Extra Specialist General might be momentarily expressed thus: When an individual is kept he loses his opportunity; he is as of now not a liberated person and, consequently, he can practice just such honours as are given on him by the request for confinement. The Bombay States of Detainment Request, 1951, which manages the details of the primary respondent’s confinement, doesn’t give him any honour or right to compose a book and send it out of the jail for distribution. On the side of his conflict, he depends upon the perceptions of Des, 1, as he then was, in A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras, wherein the learned Appointed authority has communicated the view, with regards to principal privileges, that assuming a resident loses the opportunity of his individual because of a legal detainment, he can’t guarantee the privileges under Craftsmanship. 19 of the Constitution as the evenings revered in the said article are just the characteristics of a liberated person.
  4.  Mr. Garg learned counsel for the accused, raised before us the accompanying two focuses: (1) a limitation of the nature forced by the Public authority on the accused must be made by a request given by the suitable Government under Cls. (f) and (h) of sub(1) of R. 30 of the Guard of India Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the Remnants, and that too in severe consistency with s. 44 of the Guard of India Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Demonstration, and that as the reprimanded limitation was neither made by such a request nor did it consent to S. 44 of the Demonstration, it was an unlawful limitation on his freedom; and sub(2) neither the confinement request nor the states of detainment which administered the primary respondent’s confinement empowered the Public authority to keep the expressed respondent from sending his original copybook out of the jail for distribution, and consequently, the request for the Public authority dismissing the said respondent’s solicitation in such manner was unlawful.

Conclusion

Prisoners don’t stop being people when put in bars. The Supreme Court and numerous different courts in India have repeated this situation in a few cases with the goal that detainees don’t turn into a casualty themselves. Furthermore, are furnished with a legitimate rehabilitative climate to help them improve and turn out to be better creatures. It is officeholder upon the Focal and State legislatures to not just furnish the detainees with empathetic circumstances professionally yet additionally teach them about their privileges, so it isn’t manhandled by the strong inside the prison.

One might say that the legal executive of the nation plays a vital impact in defending the privileges of detainees at whatever point the regulative and leader have failed. It has gone about as the deliverer of the convicts and maintained their essential freedoms endlessly time once more. It has completely practised its abilities through legal activism and has more than once concocted new cures and instruments to safeguard the common freedoms to life and individual freedom. Be that as it may, much actually should be finished. In such a manner, the wide dissemination of basic liberties accessible to prisoners, immense exposure of prisoners’ rights in the media, and corner-to-corner observation in prison could be a portion of the keys to maintaining the freedoms of prisoners and guaranteeing their place of refuge in the prison.

This case analysis is done by Pranita Dhara, a student of Lloyd Law College.

RELATED TO THIS BLOG:

A Legal Take on Safeguards of Liberty in India

A Legal take on Safeguards of Liberty in India

Posted on
S.noContents
1.Introduction
2.Safeguard Of Liberty
3.Essential elements in Safeguards of Liberty
4.Safeguards the protected liberty of Indian citizens
5.Right in Safeguard of Liberty
6.Landmark Judgment
7.Conclusion

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom – and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech”

By Benjamin Franklin

Introduction

Safeguards of Liberty in India was to protect people who are suffering and aged 16 or above 16 and also who needed it. Liberty Protection Safeguards(LPS) care for those people and treated their mental capacity with the proper agreement. In India basic right of the human being is liberty, the right to live life without fall of dignity. 

Every Individual who could have a Liberty Protection Safeguards authorization incorporate those with dementia, mental imbalance, and learning handicaps who come up short on the pertinent limit.

The Liberty Protection Safeguards were presented in the Mental capacity (amendment) Act 2019 and will supplant the Hardship of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) framework. The Liberty Protection Safeguards will convey further developed results for individuals who are or who should be denied their liberty. The Liberty Protection Safeguards have been intended to put the privileges and wishes of those individuals at the focal point of all dynamics on the hardship of liberty.

The liberty protection safeguards are wanted to come into force in April 2022.[1]

Safeguard Of Liberty

Liberty is the most valuable thing for an individual and viable advances are required for its safeguards. From days of yore, there is a tussle between the state’s power and individuals’ liberties. An individual appreciates more freedoms assuming that the power of the state is abridged. Liberty can’t exist in a domineering state. Prof. Laski calls attention to specific strides for protecting freedom. “Opportunity, right off the bat, won’t be accomplished for the mass of men clear under unique certifications” and it can’t “exist in that frame of mind of honor”. Besides, “extraordinary honor is incongruent with opportunity”. Thirdly, “liberty can’t be acknowledged in that frame of mind in which the privileges of some rely on the joys of others”. Fourthly, “What is the state’s fundamental duty for safeguards liberty”.

Essential elements in Safeguards of Liberty

  • The democratic form of Government

Democracy system is a type of govern­ment where everyone has an offer in the organization. Just democrat; states can give an amiable environment to the turn of events: human character. It is helpful for the full pleasure in liberty.

The Foundation of a majority rule framework is a fundamental shield of freedom. Both liberty and a democratic rules system are valuable to each other. We can’t imagine a majority rules government without the presence of common, financial, political, and individual freedom. Moreover, without even a trace of the right to opportunity, there can be no genuine majority rules government. Liberty is more secure and safer in the Majority rules system than in some other type of government. Popularity-based government is the public authority of individuals though in different types of government (like Outright Government and Fascism) all powers are focused and brought together under the control of one individual or a gathering of people. The individual in power or a gathering of people in power can’t endure his or their analysis. The nature of A majority rules system inverse gatherings is given due regard in Majority rules government. The contrary gatherings structure the public authority after the disappointment of the decision party. Analysis of the public authority is invited in Majority rule government.

  • Fundamental Rights

There should be a reasonable and unambiguous rundown of essential fundamental rights in the Constitution. Individuals should be con­versant with their freedoms and the public authority should know about the limita­tion of abilities. These freedoms are justiciable and any demonstration that contradicts the arrangements of the Constitution can be announced ultra vires.

One of the vital strategies for safeguarding liberty is to consolidate a sanction of central privileges and opportunities in the constitution of the State. Alongside it, legal insurance ought to be given privileges. They safeguard our freedom to an exceptionally extraordinary degree. These basic freedoms likewise restrict the power of the state. In the presence of crucial freedoms, the state can’t meddle in that frame of mind of individual life. Without a trace of key freedoms freedom of the individual is never out of risk and without freedom improvement of human character is preposterous.

The powers of the public authority ought to be isolated among the chief, law-making body, and legal executive. This will help in forestalling any organ of the public authority. To turn out to be outright. Each organ of the public authority. Will work in its system. As indicated by popular French Researcher Montesquieu, detachment of abilities is a fundamental condition for pleasure in the freedom and the nations where there is the partition of abilities, individuals appreciate more freedom. This interaction is finished through the utilization of balanced governance. Lord  Acton believes that “Power taints an; outright power undermines totally.” Power has an internal pattern for abuse and power ought to go about as a check to drive.

  • Responsible Government

An administration framed by the representa­tives of individuals will undoubtedly be capable. Any error concerning the public authority will sound its mark of the end and the resistance will exploit it. A bi-party framework with solid resistance will guarantee essential safeguards for liberty.

  • Love for Liberty

For the security of freedom, individuals ought to have limitless love for freedom. On the off chance that it is thus, individuals might never want to lose their freedom and will be ready to make each penance for its insurance. During the opportunity battle, lakhs of Indians made penances of their lives as they went to gallows and prisons for the fulfilment of opportunity for their homeland.

  • Rule of law

The idea of Law and order implies all people are equivalent under the watchful eye of law and regulation. This law and Regulation see no difference between the rich and poor, the high and low.

The rule of law is laid out in Britain, the U.S.A. also, and India. The idea of Law and order implies that all individuals are equivalent under the steady gaze of regulation. Regulation makes no separation between rich and poor, the high the low. All individuals ought to be under similar regulations and limited by similar sorts of commitments. Nobody ought to be above regulation. No honours will be given to an individual having a place with a specific class nor will there be any arrangement for insusceptibility. No individual will be rebuffed or saved in care for quite a while until and except if his wrongdoing is demonstrated.

  • Constitution

Just the constitution limits the power of the state. It sets out specific obstructions and these hindrances are not to be crossed by the state while utilizing its power. For the most part, the constitution is acknowledged as the incomparable law of the nation, and if any organ of the public authority disregards any arrangement of the const., that act is pronounced unlawful by the courts. In brief, every organ of the public authority. Will undoubtedly work inside the structure of the constitution and this way the constitution safeguards the liberties of individuals.

There should be a free and fair judiciary for the assurance and conservation and individual liberty. The judiciary should be free of chief and authoritative control.

The autonomous, strong, and fair-minded legal executive is the greatest defender of freedom. Thus, arrangements ought to be made to keep the legal executive free. Assuming that the Legal executive is subordinate to the Leader or on the other hand on the off chance that it isn’t liberated from the impact of the Chief, it can not grant equity nor can it safeguard the major freedoms of man. In socialist nations or in nations that have Fascism, basic privileges are given to individuals, yet the Legal executive isn’t liberated from the impact of the Chief. In such nations, the safeguards and security of central privileges, constitution, and freedom aren’t exactly imaginable and freedom becomes simply a joke. Here, just keen and fair-minded people ought to be delegated as judges. They ought to be paid significant compensation and adequate annuity after retirement. Their residency ought to be long.

Safeguards the protected liberty of Indian citizens

  • Right to life and individual freedom

 Article 21[2] gives that no individual will be denied his life or individual freedom besides as per technique laid out by regulation.

  • Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is a writ that is accustomed to bringing an individual who has been kept or detained under the watchful eye of a court. This writ is utilized to safeguard the liberty of a person.

  • Legal Review

 Legal Survey is the force of the legal executive to survey the activities of the leader and authoritative parts of government. This power is utilized to guarantee that the public authority doesn’t abuse the central privileges of residents.

Division of Abilities is a successful protection for individual freedom. The blend of a chief, administrative or legal powers in a similar individual or set of people could bring about the maltreatment of abilities and loss of individual freedom.

  • Right to constitutional remedies

The Constitution accommodates different cures, for example, writs, orders, and headings that can be utilized by residents to authorize their central freedoms.

The right to speak freely of discourse and articulation is a principal right ensured by the Constitution of India. It permits residents to offer their viewpoints unreservedly unafraid of oversight or discipline.

  • Right to information

 The Right to Information Act, of 2005[3] accommodates admittance to data held by open specialists. This right permits residents to consider public specialists responsible and guarantees straightforwardness in administration.

Article 5[4] says that safeguards are for anyone who is being arrested or detained. It is for all the people who suffer and those who are detained those people are sent to judge. Detention can be challenged if it is lawful. Victims get compensation for unlawful detention.

Some Restriction

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[5] it was contended that the ‘procedure established by law’ implied equivalent to ‘due process of law’. Both the terms are equivalent and similar security is being given in both nations with a distinction that ‘due process of law’ covers considerable and procedural regulation yet ‘methodology laid out by regulation’ covers just procedural law.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[6], Chandrachud J. said that the system must be simple, fair and sensible, not whimsical, abusive, or erratic and Krishna Iyer J. said that the ‘law’ signifies sensible regulation and no established piece.

Landmark Judgment

This idea originally came up on account of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[7]. In this situation, the solicitor was confined under Preventive Detainment Act. He tested this in the court that it be violative of his right to opportunity of development, which is the quintessence of individual freedom under Article 21[8]. The Supreme Court gave the significance of individual freedom in an extremely tight sense. It said that individual freedom incorporates just the actual opportunity of the body like independence from capture or unjust repression. It likewise said that the term ‘law’ is the state-made regulation as it were. The High Court held that Article 19[9] has no association and relevance to Article 21.

On account of Satwant Singh Sahney v. Identification Officer[10], the option to travel abroad is remembered as ‘personal liberty’ and no individual can be denied his entitlement to go besides according to the technique laid out by regulation. Refusal to give the identification of the individual with practically no reasons allotted for it adds up to an unapproved hardship of individual freedom as given under Article 21.

There was another instance of the State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang[11]. In this situation, it was seen that the detainee does not stop being an individual not having key privileges. The right to compose a book and get it distributed by a detenu is his major right and its forswearing without the power of regulation disregarded Article 21.

Conclusion

Every one of the previously mentioned focuses addresses the manners by which we can defend a singular’s liberty. These are just conceivable when every single individual no matter what their situation in the general public no matter what their positions no matter what component can make discrimination attempts to guarantee that freedom as a guideline or element pervasive in the general public isn’t compromised. Freedom is an essential element that guarantees that the Majority rule government in space wins. On the off chance that it falls flat, that Democracy is no Democracy and acts as a joke to freedom all in all.

Endnotes:

  1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liberty-protection-safeguards-factsheets/liberty-protection-safeguards-what-they-are
  2. Constitution of India, Article 21
  3. Right to Information Act, of 2005, https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf
  4. Constitution of India, Article 5
  5. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
  6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
  7. ibid 5
  8. ibid 2
  9. Constitution of India, Article 19
  10. Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, 1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
  11. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang, 1966 AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702

This article is authored by Pranita Dhara, a student of Lloyd Law College.

Is Preamble a part of Constitution: An Analysis

Posted on

Introduction

In a document, a preamble is an opening statement that gives an idea about the aims and approach of the document and the objects it seeks to achieve. Therefore, the Preamble to the Constitution of India tells us about the values and aspirations for which the nation had struggled under British rule, the intention of the Constituent Assembly, and the morals and principles of the country.

It is built on the model of the Objective Resolution, which was presented by Jawaharlal Nehru. It was moved by him in the Constituent Assembly on December 13, 1946, and adopted on January 22, 1947. However, it was adopted only after the approval of the Draft Constitution.

Components of the Preamble

There are four main components of the Preamble:-

  1. The Preamble states that the people of India are the source for the authority of the Constitution. 
  2. According to the Preamble, India is sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and a republic in nature.
  3. It states the securing of liberty, equality, and justice for its citizens and the promotion of fraternity as its objectives.
  4. It declares the date of adoption of the Constitution, i.e., November 26, 1949.

Keywords in the Preamble

Some of the keywords which are mentioned in the Preamble are described below:-

  • Sovereign – This means supreme power. Thus, this implies that India is an independent state and no other state can rule over it or dominate it. 
  • Socialist – In India, socialism means democratic socialism. It incorporates the concept of a mixed economy where both, the public sector and the private sector exist side-by-side. 
  • Secular – The concept of positive secularism is followed in India. It means that all the religions in India are equal and they receive equal respect, status, and support from the state.
  • Democratic – This means that in India, people elect their representatives who then form the government. In other words, the government derives its power from the will of its citizens expressed through elections.
  • Republic – It is a form of government in which the citizens elect the head of the state. In India, the head of the state is the President, who is elected indirectly for a term of five years.
  • Justice – The Preamble talks about social, economic, and political justice which are guaranteed through the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy given in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution respectively. Social justice refers to the just and equal treatment of all citizens without any discrimination. Economic justice means the abolition of inequality in matters of wealth, income, and possessions. Political justice means all citizens have equal political rights and access to political participation.
  • Liberty – It means the absence of restrictions on an individual’s activities and to secure the freedom of expression, thought, faith, etc. However, this liberty is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations. 
  • Equality – It means the absence of any form of discrimination and the availability of equal opportunities for all.
  • Fraternity – It implies developing a sense of brotherhood among the citizens in order to maintain unity in the country and the dignity of the individual.

Is the Preamble a Part of the Constitution?

One of the main controversies related to the Preamble was whether it is a part of the Constitution or not. This question has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the following two cases:- 

  1. In re Berubari Union case:- At the time of partition between India and Pakistan, Sir Radcliffe was given the task of demarcation of boundaries between the two nations. Radcliffe awarded Thana ‘Berubari’ in Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal to India but this was not mentioned in the award’s written text. As a result, Pakistan claimed that Berubari was a part of their territory. This dispute continued till 1958 when the Nehru-Noon Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. According to this agreement, the territory of Berubari was to be distributed equally between both countries. However, the Union Government faced criticism and its authority of transferring the territory was questioned. The matter was then referred by the President to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. 

The Court stated that the Parliament can diminish territory under Article 3 of the Constitution but it cannot cede the territory. Hence, to give effect to the Agreement the Parliament will have to amend the Constitution according to the provisions of Article 368. 

Further, the Court held that though the Preamble shows the objective of the Constitution, it is not a  part of the Constitution.

  1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala:- The main issue, in this case, was regarding the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, the Parliament was granted the power to amend any part of the Constitution. However, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Court overruled the judgment given in earlier two cases and held that the Fundamental Rights were non-amendable. To neutralize the effect of the Golaknath case, the Parliament made some major amendments to the Constitution. 

In the present case, Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a Matha in Edneer, Kerala. He questioned the Kerala government’s efforts, under two-state land reform Acts, to place restrictions on the control of the property (Matha) and challenged the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972, the 24th Amendment Act (fundamental rights), 25th Amendment Act (property rights) and 26th Amendment Act (privy purses). This case was heard by a 13 Judge Bench. 

The Preamble to an Act is not considered a part of that Act because it is not introduced and passed by the legislative body like other provisions of the Act, however, the Preamble of the Constitution of India was introduced, discussed, and enacted by the same process as the other provisions of the Constitution. This distinction was not detected in the Berubari case, but it was pointed out in the Kesavananda Bharati case. 

Here the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution of India, but it is not a source of power or limitations. Also, the seven judges who constituted the majority emphasized the Preamble and stated that the Parliament does not have absolute power of amending the Constitution and it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

In LIC of India v. Union Government, the Supreme Court has again stated that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of the Constitution.

Can the Preamble be Amended or Enforced

The Preamble is a part of the Constitution and so it can be amended, but its basic structure should not be modified. It has been amended only once through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. This Amendment added the words “Socialist”, “Secular”, and “Integrity” to the Preamble.

The Preamble is non-justifiable, i.e., orders cannot be passed by the Courts to enforce it. But it can be used for interpretation of the constitutional provisions if there is any ambiguity.  

Conclusion

The Preamble is an important component of the Constitution. Its scope might be limited but it is very helpful in cases of ambiguity. It limits the power of the legislation to avoid arbitrariness and also highlights the principles and ideals on which the Constitution is based. 

Bibliography

  1. Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE, Lawsisto, https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTA4MA==/Case-Analysis-THE-BERUBARI-UNION-CASE.
  2. Dr JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Fifty-Seventh Edition.
  3. Om Marathe, The Preamble: What does it say, and what does it mean to India and its Constitution?, The Indian Express (Jan. 24, 2020), https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-preamble-what-does-it-say-and-what-does-it-mean-to-india-and-its-constitution-6232014/.    
  4. Percival Billimora, Faraz Sagar, India: Kesavananda Bharati v. State Of Kerala And The Basic Structure Doctrine, Mondaq (Oct. 02, 2017), https://www.mondaq.com/india/constitutional-administrative-law/633634/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala-and-the-basic-structure-doctrine. 
  5. Preamble to the Constitution of India, Lawctopus, https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/preamble-constitution-india/. 
  6. The Preamble of Indian Constitution – Meaning and Significance, Enterslice, https://enterslice.com/learning/the-preamble-of-indian-constitution-meaning-and-significance/.

Why Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case is considered landmark in India’s independent history¸ India TV News, https://www.indiatvnews.com/fyi/what-is-kesavananda-bharati-case-vs–state-of-kerala-basic-structure-constitution-fundamental-rights-647544.

This article is written by Muskan Harlalka, a 2nd-year law student from the School of Law, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES