All questions of Preamble of the Constitution for OPSC OCS (Odisha) Exam

The correct answer should be D. The preamble can and has been amended Under article 368 of the Indian Constitution. So the statement 1 Is not true. same goes with statement 2 as constitution originally had only 3 words- Sovereignty Democratic and Republic

Preamble of the Constitution of India is an introductory statement that outlines the objectives and the basic principles of the Constitution. It is not a part of the enforceable Constitution but it reflects the ideals and aspirations of the people of India.

The objectives of the Preamble are:

1. Sovereign: India is a sovereign nation, which means it has the power to govern itself without any external influence.

2. Socialist: The Preamble aims to establish a socialist society where there is no exploitation of one class by another.

3. Secular: India is a secular country that does not promote or discriminate against any religion.

4. Democratic: India is a democratic country where the power is vested in the hands of the people.

5. Republic: India is a republic, which means there is no monarchy or hereditary ruler.

6. Justice: The Preamble seeks to establish social, economic, and political justice.

7. Liberty: The Preamble aims to protect the liberty of the citizens of India.

8. Equality: The Preamble promotes equality of status and opportunity to all citizens.

9. Fraternity: The Preamble advocates unity and brotherhood among all citizens of India.

The correct answer to the question is option 'A', Federalism. Federalism is not an objective of the Preamble. Federalism refers to the distribution of powers between the central government and the state governments. Although the Constitution of India adopts a federal structure, it is not an objective of the Preamble.

Source of the Preamble
The Preamble of the Constitution of India serves as an introductory statement that outlines the guiding principles and philosophy of the Constitution. Its source is often linked to the Objective Resolution introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru.
Objective Resolution
- The Objective Resolution was presented by Nehru in the Constituent Assembly on December 13, 1946.
- It laid down the fundamental values and guiding principles for the future Constitution of India.
Contents of the Objective Resolution
- The resolution emphasized the need for a democratic and secular state.
- It highlighted the importance of social, economic, and political justice.
- It aimed to ensure individual liberty and equality for all citizens, fostering fraternity among the people.
Significance of the Preamble
- The Preamble reflects the aspirations of the people of India and serves as a guiding light for the interpretation of the Constitution.
- It encapsulates the core values of the Indian state, such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Other Options Explained
- Meerut Congress Session, 1946: This session dealt with various political issues but was not the source of the Preamble.
- Karachi Congress Session, 1931: This session focused on the Fundamental Rights but did not contribute directly to the Preamble.
- Faizpur Congress Session, 1936: Although significant for the Congress, it did not address the Preamble's framework.
Conclusion
The correct attribution of the Preamble's source to the Objective Resolution presented in the Constituent Assembly, 1946, underscores its foundational role in shaping the Constitution of India. This resolution set the tone for the values that are enshrined in the Preamble, making option 'B' the correct answer.

The correct answer is option 'B' - Berubari Case, 1960.

Explanation:

The Berubari Case of 1960 was a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India that dealt with the question of the constitutional status of the Preamble. The case arose out of a dispute between India and Pakistan over the ownership of the Berubari Union of West Bengal.

The Indian government sought to transfer the Berubari Union to Pakistan under the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958. However, the transfer required an amendment to the Indian Constitution, which would have affected the territorial integrity of India. The amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and therefore, it could be amended without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that the Preamble was a mere introductory statement and did not confer any rights or impose any obligations.

The court observed that the Preamble was not a source of power or an instrument of limitation, but merely a key to understanding the Constitution. The court also held that the Preamble was not enforceable in a court of law and did not confer any justiciable rights.

This judgement had far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the Indian Constitution. It established the principle that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and therefore, it could be amended without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution. However, this view has been challenged in subsequent judgements, such as the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which held that the Preamble was a part of the Constitution and formed an integral part of its basic structure.

Overview of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution serves as an introductory statement that outlines the guiding principles and values of the document. Let's analyze each of the statements provided:
1. Social, Economic, and Political Justice
- The Preamble explicitly guarantees justice in social, economic, and political spheres to all citizens.
- This principle is foundational to the Constitution, ensuring equality and fairness.
2. Inclusion of "Secular" in the Original Text
- The term "Secular" was not part of the original Preamble adopted in 1949.
- It was added later through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, reflecting a commitment to the separation of religion from the State.
3. Promotion of Fraternity
- The Preamble indeed aims to promote fraternity, which assures the dignity of the individual.
- It emphasizes the unity and integrity of the nation, fostering a spirit of brotherhood among all citizens.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis:
- Statement 1 is correct.
- Statement 2 is incorrect.
- Statement 3 is correct.
Thus, the correct answer is option 'C': 1 and 3 Only. This highlights the importance of social justice and fraternity in the Indian context while clarifying the misconception regarding the term "Secular" in the Preamble.

Understanding the Pairs
To determine how many pairs are correctly matched, let’s analyze each statement individually.
1. Justice - Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
- Justice is fundamentally about fairness, law, and moral principles. While liberty is a component of justice, the description provided here leans more towards the concept of liberty itself than justice.
- Conclusion: Incorrect match.
2. Liberty - Social, economic and political
- Liberty encompasses individual freedoms, including social, economic, and political aspects. This definition aligns well with the broader understanding of liberty in democratic societies.
- Conclusion: Correct match.
3. Equality - Status and opportunity
- Equality refers to the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. This definition is appropriate as it captures the essence of equality in both social and legal contexts.
- Conclusion: Correct match.
4. Fraternity - Assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation
- Fraternity emphasizes brotherhood and unity among individuals within a society. While it relates to dignity and national unity, the direct connection is not as strong as the other definitions.
- Conclusion: Incorrect match.
Summary of Matches
- Correctly Matched Pairs: 2 (Liberty and Equality)
- Incorrectly Matched Pairs: 2 (Justice and Fraternity)
Given this analysis, the correct answer is option 'B', which states that only two pairs are correctly matched.

Minerva Mills Case

The Supreme Court judgment that clarified that the Preamble is not a source of power to the government but a key to understanding the Constitution's objectives is the Minerva Mills Case.

Background:
The Minerva Mills Case, officially known as Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., was a landmark case in Indian constitutional law. It was decided by a bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court of India on May 21, 1980. The case involved a challenge to certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which had made significant changes to the Constitution of India.

Key Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the 42nd Amendment Act violated the basic structure doctrine as established in the previous landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. They contended that the amendment had, among other things, infringed upon the fundamental rights of citizens and undermined the independence of the judiciary.

Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, struck down several provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act, including those that sought to curtail the power of judicial review and dilute fundamental rights. The Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and held that the amending power of Parliament is not absolute and must be exercised within the limits set by the Constitution.

Preamble as a Key to Understanding Objectives:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the nature and significance of the Preamble to the Constitution. The Court held that the Preamble is not a source of power to the government but a key to understanding the Constitution's objectives. It emphasized that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and provides the basic structure and foundation for the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Court further stated that the Preamble reflects the resolve and aspirations of the people of India and serves as a guiding light for the interpretation of the Constitution. It emphasized that the Preamble's objectives, such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, must inform and guide the interpretation of the Constitution and the exercise of governmental power.

Conclusion:
The Minerva Mills Case clarified the significance of the Preamble to the Constitution and its role in guiding the interpretation of the Constitution. It established that the Preamble is not a source of power to the government but a key to understanding the Constitution's objectives. This judgment reaffirmed the importance of the Preamble as a guiding principle for governance and the protection of fundamental rights in India.

Analysis of Statement-I
- The Preamble of the Indian Constitution indeed outlines the fundamental principles and aspirations that form the foundation of the Constitution.
- It encapsulates the objectives of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, representing the core values that guide the nation.
Analysis of Statement-II
- While the Preamble is a vital part of the Constitution, it is not legally enforceable. This means that one cannot approach the courts for the violation of the rights or principles mentioned in the Preamble.
- The Preamble can be amended; however, such amendments must comply with the procedures outlined in Article 368 of the Constitution. This indicates that while it is subject to change, its content does not have legal authority.
Conclusion
- Correct Interpretation: Therefore, Statement-I is correct as it accurately describes the Preamble's role. However, Statement-II is incorrect because it misrepresents the enforceability of the Preamble.
- Correct Answer: Thus, the correct answer is option 'C' - "Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect."
This differentiation clarifies the true nature of the Preamble and its relationship with the Constitution, emphasizing its significance as a guiding framework rather than a legally binding document.

The correct answer is option 'D', i.e. 'Equality'.

Explanation:

Untouchability refers to the social practice of discriminating people based on their caste or social status. It is a form of caste-based discrimination that has been prevalent in India for centuries. The Constitution of India, which was adopted in 1950, abolished untouchability and declared it a punishable offence.

The prohibition of untouchability comes under the concept of 'Equality', which is one of the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution. The idea of equality implies that all individuals are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection and equal opportunities. It prohibits any kind of discrimination based on caste, creed, religion, gender, or any other grounds.

The prohibition of untouchability is based on the principle of equality, as it seeks to eliminate the discriminatory practice of treating certain groups of people as inferior or untouchable. It ensures that every individual, irrespective of their caste or social status, is treated with dignity and respect.

Conclusion:

To conclude, the prohibition of untouchability comes under the concept of 'Equality', which is one of the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution seeks to eliminate all forms of discrimination and ensure that every individual is treated with equal dignity and respect. The prohibition of untouchability is a step towards achieving this goal.

Kesavananda Bharati Case

The Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the secular nature of the Preamble and the Constitution of India is the Kesavananda Bharati Case. This landmark case, also known as the Fundamental Rights case, was heard by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1973.

Background:
The case arose from a challenge to the Kerala Government's attempts to acquire land belonging to the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which was managed by the petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati. However, the real significance of this case lay in the larger constitutional questions it raised.

Key Issues:
The main issue in this case was the interpretation of Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The petitioner argued that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that it could not destroy or alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

Secular Nature of the Preamble:
One of the key aspects of the case was the interpretation of the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble declares India to be a "sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic." The petitioner argued that the term "secular" in the Preamble implied that India was a secular state and that the government could not favor any particular religion.

Supreme Court's Ruling:
In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was a part of the Constitution and that it could be subject to amendment like any other provision of the Constitution. However, the Court also held that the power of amendment under Article 368 was subject to certain limitations. These limitations were to protect the basic structure of the Constitution, which included the secular nature of the Constitution.

The Court held that the term "secular" in the Preamble meant that the government should maintain an equal distance from all religions and should not favor any particular religion. It also held that the secular nature of the Constitution was a part of its basic structure and could not be amended.

Impact:
The Kesavananda Bharati case is considered a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law. It established the doctrine of basic structure, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It also affirmed the secular nature of the Constitution and the principle of religious neutrality in state affairs.

This judgment has had far-reaching implications on the interpretation of the Constitution and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. It has played a crucial role in upholding the fundamental rights and values enshrined in the Constitution and ensuring the secular character of the Indian state.