I. Since the birth of Constitution in India until now, much has been written and said about the preamble to it. This includes the decisions of honourable courts and writings of jurists. For example, there has been a controversy on the point whether the preamble is a part of the Constitution or not until 1973 in which year the Supreme Court of India observed, in Kesavananda Bharti V. state of kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225, that “the preamble is a part of the Constitution.” Thus overruling its earlier stand that “the preamble is not a part of the Constitution” as held out in Re: Berubari Union (1) (1960) 3 SCR 250.
In fact, a number of issues pertaining to the preamble of Indian Constitution have been discussed and debated by the Constitutional experts in India and elsewhere. But the point which will remain the centre of gravity in this paper is - whether the preamble is a source of Constitution. And, yes, I have a reason to believe - that it is, notwithstanding the fact it has been put in the Constitution at the last stage of its framing. The nature and phraseology of the preamble clearly suggest that the provisions (body) of the Constitution have to be on the lines of the broader framework, sketched out in the preamble. Yet, however, I also argue that there are contradictions between what has been enunciated in the preamble and the purview which follows it, though many may not concur with my opinion.
The preamble constitutes the crux about what follows in the purview of the Constitution.
In other words, we can say that the preamble symbolizes what the country (India) stands for. It outlines the major edifices the Indian Constitution is built upon. The preamble contains a condensed and accurate account of the objectives and broad features of the Constitution which are worked out in detail in the succeeding Articles.