Question
It was remarked in ‘Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab’ that our ‘Preamble to the Constitution contains in a nutshell its ideals and aspirations’ by one of the judges ?
The correct answer is
Justice K. Subba Rao
Golaknath Case: Preamble's Ideals and Aspirations
The question refers to a specific remark made by one of the judges during the significant constitutional case of 'Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab'.
Case Context:
- The 'Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab' case (1967) was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India.
- It dealt with the fundamental rights and Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
Judge's Remark on the Preamble:
During the deliberations in this case, Justice K. Subba Rao made a notable observation regarding the Preamble to the Constitution. He stated that the Preamble serves as a concise summary of the nation's fundamental ideals and aspirations.
Attribution:
This specific commentary on the Preamble being 'in a nutshell its ideals and aspirations' was made by Justice K. Subba Rao.
Was this answer helpful?
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 :
Need Expert Advice?
