Skip to main content

Preamble

 Preamble


The ‘Objective Resolution’, proposed by Pandit Nehru and passed by the Constituent Assembly, ultimately became the Preamble to the Constitution of India.

The Preamble is an introduction to the Constitution of India. It is a key to the minds of the makers of the Constitution.

The significance of the Preamble lies in the fact that it tells us about three things i.e., ultimate source of authority, form of government and form of state, and the objectives to be attained.


Preamble declares that sovereignty lies ultimately with the people of India. The Preamble declares that it is the people of India who has enacted, adopted and given the Constitution to themselves. It is the people of India who are ruled and ruling, who are elected and electing.

The Preamble declares India to be a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic.

 Sovereignty means that we are independent in our internal and external affairs. We are not subject to any outside power.


The word socialism in the Indian context means removal of inequalities and discriminations, equal distribution of resources, equal access to public places and public offices.

 There shall be no discrimination on the basis of caste, class, religion, race, color, creed, sex or place of birth.

 The aim of socialism in the Indian context is to remove poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and unemployment.


The Constitution of India declares India to be a secular state in its preambular part.


 The word Secularism was not there in the Preamble at the outset.

It was later on incorporated through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.

 The word secularism means that India has no religion of its own.

 The state which has its own religion is known as theocracy. Unlike that, India is a secular state which means it neither favors nor disfavors any religion.

It is neither (re)ligious, nor (irre)ligious, not (anti) rereligiou, nor (pro) religious.


Democracy means the government of the people, by the people and for the people. 


Republic means head of the Indian state is not  heredity as compared to the head of the British Monarchy.  

Rather it is indirectly elected.

The Preamble declares certain objectives to be achieved i.e., justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.

As the Supreme Court has observed, the Preamble is a key to unravel the minds of the makers of the Constitution.

The Constitution (42nd Amendment Act) 1976 amended the Preamble and added the words Socialist Secular and Integrity to the Preamble.


The Preamble is non-justiciable in nature.

But it has been declared as a part of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharti case.


It can neither provide substantive power (definite and real power) to the three organs of the state, nor limit their powers under the provision of the Constitution.

 The Preamble cannot override the specific provisional of the Constitution. In case of any conflict between the two, the later shall prevail.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more