General Knowledge & Current Affairs for Competitive Exams

The correct answer is once. The Preamble has been amended only one time, by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. That amendment added three words: "Socialist" and "Secular" to the description of India, and "Integrity" to the phrase "unity and integrity of the Nation".

"Never" is wrong because the 1976 change is on record; it is also why the Preamble as quoted today differs from the text adopted on 26 November 1949, which described India only as a "sovereign democratic republic". "Twice" and "three times" confuse the number of amendments with the number of words added, which is three. Keep the two numbers apart: one amendment, three words. The fact that the Preamble can be amended at all was settled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which held that it is a part of the Constitution and can be amended so long as its basic features are not destroyed.

The correct answer is N.A. Palkhivala. Nani Ardeshir Palkhivala, one of India's most eminent jurists and constitutional lawyers, called the Preamble the "identity card of the Constitution", because it tells us in one sentence what the Constitution is, where its authority comes from and what it sets out to achieve.

The other names are linked to different descriptions, and examiners use them precisely because they sound right. K.M. Munshi, a member of the Drafting Committee, called the Preamble the "political horoscope" of the sovereign democratic republic. Sir Ernest Barker, the British political scientist, described it as the "key-note" of the Constitution. Dr B.R. Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee, and his best-known description is of Article 32, which he called the heart and soul of the Constitution. Learn these as pairs, because questions often give the phrase and ask for the person, or the other way round.

The correct answer is A guiding principle for interpretation. The Preamble is not enforceable in a court of law: it is neither a source of power for the legislature nor a limit on its powers. Its main legal use is as an aid to interpretation. When the meaning of a provision of the Constitution is unclear, courts look to the Preamble to understand the objectives the framers had in mind.

The other options describe things the Preamble is not. It is not a schedule: the Constitution's schedules are separate lists placed at the end of the text, such as the list of languages. It is not a financial guideline. And it is not an enforceable part of law, which is the most tempting wrong answer: even after the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, it remained non-justiciable. Being part of the Constitution and being enforceable in court are two different things, and this question tests exactly that difference.

The correct answer is the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). In the Berubari Union case of 1960 the Supreme Court had said that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, though it is a key to the minds of its makers. In Kesavananda Bharati the Court rejected that view and held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and can be amended, provided its basic features are not changed.

The Berubari Union case is the earlier decision that was reversed, so it cannot be the answer. The LIC of India case of 1995 came later and only reaffirmed that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution; it did not reverse anything. The Golaknath case of 1967 concerned Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, not the status of the Preamble. The word "reverse" in the question is the clue: it points to the case that overturned Berubari, which is Kesavananda Bharati.

The correct answer is the Russian Revolution. The ideal of justice in the Preamble, described as social, economic and political, was inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917, which is why books often list the former USSR as its source. It sits alongside the three objectives drawn from France.

The French Revolution is the source of liberty, equality and fraternity, the other three objectives, so it is the most tempting wrong answer. The American connection is to the idea of having a preamble at all, taken from the Constitution of the United States, not to the ideal of justice. The Magna Carta is a landmark of English constitutional history but is not the source of anything in the Preamble. A good way to remember the split: of the four objectives, justice points east, to Russia, while liberty, equality and fraternity point west, to France.

The correct answer is France. The ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble were taken from France, where they were the watchwords of the French Revolution. France is also the source of the idea of a republic.

The other options gave India different features. The United Kingdom is the source of parliamentary government, the rule of law, the cabinet system and single citizenship. Canada gave the idea of a federation with a strong Centre and residuary powers vested in the Centre. Ireland gave the Directive Principles of State Policy and the method of electing the President. The ideal of justice in the Preamble, the fourth of its objectives, has a different source again: the Russian Revolution. So of the four objectives, three (liberty, equality and fraternity) trace to France and one (justice) traces to the former USSR, a split that examiners like to test.