Supreme Court Ruling on Preamble as Part of Constitution
The question asks to identify the Supreme Court case where it was held that the 'Preamble is the part of the constitution'. This landmark decision clarified the status of the Preamble within the Indian constitutional framework.
Key Case: Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala
In the significant case of Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court definitively ruled that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. This judgment upheld the Preamble's importance and its integral role in interpreting the Constitution.
Context of Previous Rulings
While the Berubari Union case (1960) initially suggested the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution, the Supreme Court revisited this position in later cases. The ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala solidified the view that the Preamble is indeed an essential component of the Constitution, alongside establishing the basic structure doctrine.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that 'the preamble is the part of the constitution' in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
