Question

It was held by the Supreme Court of India that preamble was not a part of the constitution in the case of _______ and this has been overruled in the case of _____

• A. In re Berubari Union; Keshavananda Bharathi vs. State of Kerala
• B. A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
• C. Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib; Som Prakash vs. Union of India
• D. I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab; Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India

Hint:

For constitutional law, remember this important reversal: \textbf{Berubari (1960) = Preamble NOT a part}. \textbf{Kesavananda (1973) = Preamble IS a part}. The Kesavananda Bharati case is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history for many reasons, including this one.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question traces the evolution of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the status of the Preamble to the Constitution of India. Initially, the Court took a more traditional view, but later, in a landmark case, it reversed its position, giving the Preamble a place of great significance.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The chronological development of this legal question is as follows: \begin{enumerate} \item In re Berubari Union (1960): In this presidential reference, the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution. It observed that the Preamble shows the general purposes behind the several provisions but is not a source of power nor a limitation upon power. It is a key to open the mind of the makers, but not a part of the Constitution itself. \item Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): In this historic case, a 13-judge bench overruled the Berubari Union opinion. The Court held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. It recognized the Preamble's importance in interpreting the Constitution and as an embodiment of the basic structure of the Constitution. \end{enumerate} Option (A) correctly identifies this sequence of judicial rulings. The other options are incorrect pairings: \begin{itemize} \item (B) Gopalan vs. Maneka Gandhi deals with the interpretation of Article 21. \item (C) Ajay Hasia vs. Som Prakash deals with the definition of "State" under Article 12. \item (D) Golaknath and Shankari Prasad deal with the amendability of Fundamental Rights. \end{itemize}
Step 3: Final Answer:
The Preamble was held not to be a part of the constitution in In re Berubari Union and this was overruled in Keshavananda Bharathi vs. State of Kerala.