THE PREAMBLE

THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION The Preamble to a constitution is expected to embody the fundamental values and the philosophy on which the constitution is based and the aims and objectives which the founding fathers enjoined the polity to strie to achieve. The Preamble to our constitution, as adopted by the Constitution Assembly,spoke of !e, the people of "ndia# making a solemn resolve to constitute "ndia into a $over%eign &emocratic 'epublic# securing for all its citi(ens justice, )iberty and *+uality, and promoting among them all ,raternity. -ustice is further defined as social, economic and political. )iberty includes liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and *+uality means e+uality of status and of opportunity. "n fact, justice, liberty, e+uality and fraternity are the most essential concomitants of a truly democratic order and therefore only elucidate the concept of a democratic republic. The ultimate goal is that of $ecuring the dignity of the individual and unity of the nation#. Thus, the Preamble serves the purpose of declaring that .The people of "ndia/ are the source of the Constitution, that sovereignty in "ndia polity vests in the people and that "ndian polity is democratic with fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to all the people and amity among the people and dignity of the individual and integrity and unity of the nation assured. The words used in the Preamble of our Constitution are some of the noblest. They embody the highest values that human ingenuity and experience have been able to devise thus far. The 0xford 1niversity Political $cience professor $ir *rnest 2asker was so moved by the text that he +uoted it as a preface to his treatise and thought that it represented the +uintessence of his work. 3e said4 "t seemed to me, when " read it, to state in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the books5 and it may accordingly serve as a keynote#.

"n the 2erubari case, the supreme Court agreed that the Preamble was the key to the minds of the framers of the Constitution. !here the words were found to be vague or their meaning was unclear, help of the framers and find out whether a particular word was used in a wide or narrow context. 6evertheless, -ustice 7ajendragadkar said, the preamble was not a part of the constitution. Also, it kid not confer any substantial powers upon the legislatures of other organs of states. These must have their source in express or implied grant by the provisions of the constitution. "n $ajjan $ingh v. $tate of 'ajasthan, -ustice 8asholkar said that the Preamble had the stamp of deep deliberation#, was marked by precision# and the framers of the Constitution attached special significance to it#. The preamble was an epitome# of the broad features of the Constitution which were an amplification or concreti(ation which were an amplification, or concreti(ation of the concepts set out in the Preamble. The earlier $upreme Court opinion regarding the Preamble not being a part of the Constitition, perphaps needed reconsideration. -ustice 3idyatullah also invoked the Preamble as an aid to constitution. "t was felt that attension should be paid to the intention of the framers of the constitution as expressed through the preamble. "n 7olak 6ath v.$tate of Punjab, justice 3idyatullah observed that the Preamble to the constitution epitomi(ed principle on which the 7overnment was to function. The Preamble was the very .soul of the Constitution 9 eternal and unalterable.# 0ur Preamble, he said, was a declaration of our faith and belief in certain fundamentals of national life, a standard from which we must not depart and a resolve we must not shake. As held by the $upreme Court later in Bharti Chandra Bhavan v. State of Mysore :A"' ;<=>$C ?>@?A, the scope of the &irective Principles and the ,undamental 'ights also could be better understood in the light of the objectives enshrined in the Preamble. "n the Berubari case, it seems, the $upreme Court did not realise that as contradistinguished from a Preamble to an Act which is not discussed or voted in the 3ouses of the )egislature, the Preamble to our Constitution was fully discussed, duly enacted and adopted by the Constituent Assembly just like any other part of the Constitution. !hile putting the Preamble to the final vote, the President of the Assembly had said4 .The +uestion is that, the Preamble stand part
2

of the Constitution#. Appropriately, therefore, the $upreme Court later revised its stand. "n Besavananda 2harti v. State of Kerala, :;<=CA @$CC ??D, A"' ;<=C $C ;@E;, the majority of the judges referred to the Constituent Assembly &ebates and held that the Preamble was part of the Constitution and the held that the Preamble was part of the Constitution and the observations to the contrary in Berubari Union case were not correct#. The Preamble, in fact, contained the basic structure of the Constitution. -ustice $ikri said that the legislative history of the Preamble to the Constitution justified its importance. The Preamble was not only very much a part of the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble#. Any provisions of the Constitution could be amended under article CEFonly within the broad contours of the Preamble and the Constitutions/. "n fact, the inalienable .basic elements/ of the Constitution were sought to be traced from the words of the Preamble and it was held that the provisions of the constitution could not be amended so as to alter the basic elements. Although the basic elements were not precisely defined, those mentioned in the Preamble were specifically included. "n the words of the learned $upreme Court, the edifice of our Constitution is based upon the basic elements mentioned in the Preamble. "f any of these elements are removed, the structure will not survive and it will not be the same Constitution or it cannot maintain its identity#. Thus, it was established that the basic elements or features of the Constitution as contained in the Preamble could not be altered by any amendment under article CEF. 2ut, even though the Preamble is now taken to be an inviolable part of the Constitution and assumes special position as an aid to interpreting the Constitution, it also remains a fact that it is neither a source of any power not a limitation thereon. ,irst asserted in the Berubari case, this point was reiterated by -ustice 8athew in "ndira 6ehru 7andhi vs 'aj 6arain :A"' ;<=D $C ??<;A. &uring the *mergency, the ,orty%$econd Constitution Amendment Act of ;<=E added to the Preamble the words .socialist/ and .secular/. Also, .1nity of the 6ation/ was amended to read .unit and integrity of the 6ation/. These +ualifying terms, it was felt, were generally clarificatory in nature of the polity or the $tate
3

inasmuch as socialism, secularism and national integrity were, according to the lawmakers, already implicit in the Preamble and in the rest of the Constitution as originally framed. In Bommai v Union of India :A"' ;<<@ $c ;<;F5 -T :;<<@A $C?;DA regarding the dismissal of 2-P governments in 8adhya Pradesh, 'ajasthan and 3imachal Pradesh, -ustice 'amaswamy said4
The Preamble of the Constitution, is an integral part of the Constitution. &emocratic form of government, federal structure, unity and integrity of the nation, secularism, social justice and judicial review are basic features of the Constitution.

According to the text of the Preamble as it stands today after the forty% second amendment, the supreme or fundamental constitutional values in which the founding fathers believed, which they wanted to foster among the people of the republic and which, they hoped, would guide all those who, from generation to generation, were called upon to work the Constitution were4 Sovereignty "n Political $cience and -urisprudential terms, sovereignty, is considered to be one of the essential attributes of a $tate and connotes absolute and supreme power not subject to control by any internal or external authority. Cooley defines a sovereign $tate as one !here there resides within itself a supreme and absolute power acknowledging no superior#. "n the Keshvananda Bharati case, -ustice 8athew
4

$overeignty $ocialism $ecularism &emocracy 'epublican character -ustice )iberty *+uality ,raternity &ignity of the individual, and 1nity and "ntegrity of the 6ation

said that the 'epublic of "ndia was sovereign# because it could make or unmake any decision with respect to itself without any interference from outside :A"'A ;<=C $C ;@EA. "n these traditional terms of sovereignty, no $tate today can be said to be fully sovereign. 8embership of international organi(ations like the 1nited 6ations, *uropean 1nion etc. and international teraties, accords, conventions etc. Cast obligations, put restraints and erode sovereignty. The Constitution of "ndia does not contain any specific provision in regard to the vesting of sovereign powers. The only place from where the residence of sovereignty and the source of the Constitution itself can be ascertained is the Preamble. The words .!e the People/ remind us of the opening words of the Preamble of the 1.$ Constitution speaks#. "ts earlier drafts and history make it amply clear that the framer of the American Constitution were referring to the people of the several :;CA independent $tates seeking .a more perfect union/ and not to one people of a nation. The Preamble to the Constitution of "ndia, on the other hand, did not talk of the people of the $tates of the "ndian 1nion. 1nlike the 1.$. Constitution, our Constitution did not even re+uire any ratification by the $tates. 2y saying that we, the People of "ndia# adopt, enact and given to ourselves this Constitution#, the founding fathers solemnly affirmed that wer were one people, people of "ndia, and not people of different $tates etc., that sovereignty belonged to the whole people of "ndia and not to those of separate $tates and that the Constitution was framed and adopted not by the people of states but by the whole people of "ndia in their collective capacity as one indivisible sovereign unit. "t was sought to be stressed that we were one nation and had one Constitution and one polity. 1nlike the 1nited $tates and Australia, where sovereignty is divided between the 1nion or the Commonwealth and the $tates, each being sovereign in the sphere assigned to it by the Constitution, in "ndia, despite the division of power between the 1nion and the $tates, there is no division of sovereignty as between them. The 1nion can override the $tates in national interest during emergencies. *ven during normal times, it can invade the $tates/ sphere by legislating on subjects in the $tate list under article ?@<.
5

2ecause our national sovereignty was one and indivisible, no $tate or group of $tates could annual the Constitution or move out of the 1nion established by the Constitution. "n the 1nited $tates, a civil was had to be waged and won in order to establish the indestructibility of the 1nion. 2ut, our founding fathers at the very outset provided for the indestructibility of the 1nion and for $tates having no right to secede from the 1nion. Article ;:CA :CA of the Constitution made it clear that the 1nion of "ndia could ac+uire foreign territory. Also, one of the attributes of sovereignty is the power to cede parts of national territory if necessary.# : In re the Berubari Union A"' ;<E> $C F@DA. The 1nion could also cede its territory subject to necessary constitutional amendment (Maganbhai Ishwarbhai atel v. Union of India (!"#$% & SCC !$$%. 1nder Articles ?, C and @ of the Constitution, the 1nion Parliament can be ordinary legislation admit or establish new $tates in the 1nion, alter the name, area and boundaries of the existing $tates. 1nder the citi(enship provisions, there is only one citi(enship for all the people of "ndia and no double citi(enship of the 1nion and of the states as in the 1nited $tates. Thus, the Preamble provisions of our Constitution Put an end to concepts of traditional federalism, divided sovereignty, autonomy of $tates etc. Also, the founding fathers sought to clarify for all times that $overeignty in our scheme of things vests in the people themselves and that all the organs and functionaries of the 1nion and the $tates draw their powers only from the people of "ndia.

Sociali ! The ,ounding fathers did not want the Constitution to be wedded to any particular political ideology or ism or to be limited by any economic doctrine. They did not, therefore, agree to include any reference inter alia to socialism. 2ut the Preamble did mention the resolve to secure to all citi(ens economic justice and e+uality of status and opportunity. And, the Constitution :,orty% $econd AmendmentA Act, ;<=E introduced the word $ocialist# to +ualify our 'epublic#. The text of the Preamble as amended gives almost the highest place of honour to the .socialist/
6

objective. "t is mentioned next only to .$overeign/. 3owever, the term .socialist/ has not been defined by the Constitution. The Constitution :,orty%fifth AmendmentA 2ill, attempted to define .$ocialist/ to mean ,ree from all forms of exploitation% social, economic and political.# The 2ill was however, finally adopted as the @@tgh Amendment without the definition. $ocialism# is difficult to define. "t has meant different things to different people and is hardly left with any one definite connotation. &ictionary meaning of the word would imply, in full or in part, placing means of production and distribution in public hands, i.e. under public :meaning .$tate/A ownership and G or control as against private ownership and free enterpri(e. $ocialism meant elimination of ine+uality in income and status and standards of living. Also, after addition of the word .socialist/ in the Preamble, the Courts in their interpretation of the Constitution could expectedly lean more in favour of nationali(ation and state ownership of private property, industry, etc. and the right to e+ual pay for e+ual pay for e+ual work. H Minerva Mills v. Union of India,'I( !")$ SC !#)"* +harwad ,m-loyees v. State of Karnata.a, (!""$% /SCC &"0* 'tam ra.ash v.State of 1aryana, A"' ;<FE $C FD<I. 2ut, the new economic policy of liberali(ation, free market competition, entry of foreign companies disinvestment in public sector undertakings, privati(ation etc. 3ardly +ualified to be considered socialistic by any definition. Sec"lari ! &ictionaries define .secularism/ as pertaining to this world or to things . not spiritual .,/6ot concerned with religion/,/a system of belief which rejects all forms of religious faith and worship/, .irreligious/ etc. *ncyclopaedia 2ritannica defines secularism as utilitarian ethic# designed for the physical, spiritual and moral improvement of mankind which neither affirms nor denies the theistic premise of religion. *ncyclopaedia of $ocial $ciences defines it as an attempt to establish an autonomous sphere of knowledge purged of supernatural presuppositions. A.'. 2lackshield, who tried to fix the perception and parametes of secularism in the !est, was unable to arrive at any fully viable and acceptable definition of the term. "t was he concluded, not exactly opposite of religion, but then it was not easy to define religion either. According to him, secularism could
7

be understood to imply religios freedom and tolerance and respect for ideas of rationalism, materialism, humanism etc. An academic definition of the concept of secularism in the "ndian context has been attempted by &onald *ugene $mith in the following words4
The secular state is a state which gives individual and corporate freedom of religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion, nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with religion#.

As -ustice &esai put it, a secular state deals with the individual as a citi(en irrespective of his religion, is not connected to a particular religion nor does it seek to promote or interfere with religion. $ecular state must have nothing to do with religious affairs except when their management involves crime. ,raud or becomes a threat to unity and integrity of the $tate. &elivering his judgement in (iyauddin 2urhammudin 2ukhari vs. 2rijmohan 'amdass 8ehra and 2ros. :;<=D $uppl. $.C.'. ?F;A -ustice 8.3. 2eg said4
The secular state, rising above all difference of religion, attempts to secure the good of all its citi(ens irrespective of their religious beliefs and practices. "t is neutral or impartial in extending its benefits to citi(ens of al cates and creds. 8aitland has pointed out that such a state has to ensure, through its laws that the existence or exercise of political or civil right or the right or capacity to occupy any office or position under it or to perform any public duty connected with it does not depend upon the profession or practice of any particular religion. 0ur Constitution and the laws framed thereunder leave citi(ens free to work out happy and harmonious relationships between their religious and the +uite separable secular fields of law and politics. 2ut they do not permit an unjustifiable invasion of what belongs to one sphere by what appertains really to another. "t is for courts to determine, in a case of dispute, whether any sphere was or was not properly interfered with, in accordance with the Constitution, even by a purported law.

Anything that is pernicious and exploitative cannot be allowed to remain outside the control of law simply because it is paraded under the garb of religion. -ustices 7ajendragadjar, &hawan and 2eg found secularismpractised by ancient 3indu society and e+ually traceable to "slamic jurisprudence. -ustice 2eg suggested that a happy harmony and synthesis of the best in secularism and religion# was possible. A theory of secularism could be built on ancient jurisprudence. "n the Besvanada 2harti case :A"' ;<=C $C ;@E;A, secularism was
8

held to be part of the bsic structure. Juoting from 8anu and Parashara, justice 2eg, however said4
*ven our ancient jurists recogni(ed the principles that one generation has no right to tie down future generations to its own views or laws even on fundamentals. They not only differ between one society and another but also as between one generation and another of the same society or nation .

In S.(. Bommai v.Union of India (A"' ;<<@ $C ;<;FA the $upreme cout dwelt at length on the basic feature of secularism in the Constitution and justified the proclamations under under article CDE imposing President/s rule in the 2-P ruled $tates in the aftermath of 2abri 8asjid demolition on the ground of threat to .secularism/ which it held to be a basic feature of the Constitution and one that was there even before the word .secular/ was inserted in the Preamble by the @? nd Amendment. "n the Ayodhya case :A"';<<D $C E>DA, the $upreme Court explained secularism thus4
"t is clear from the constitutional scheme that it guarantees e+uality in the matter of religion to all individuals and groups irrespective of their faith emphasi(ing that there is no religion of the $tate itself. The Preamble of the Constitution read in particular with article ?D to ?F emphasises this aspect and indicates that it is in this manner the concept of secularism embodied in the constitutional scheme as a creed adopted by the "ndian people has to be understood while examining the constitutional validity of any legislation on the touch stone of the Constitution. The concept of secularism is one facet of the right to e+uality woven as the central golden thread in the fabric depicting the pattern of the scheme in our Constitution.

"n the absence of any precise or formal definition of .secularism/ in the "ndian context, several different inter pretations were possible. The perceptions of the apex court also have varied from case to case depending upon the constitution of each 2ench . 1nlike the !est, in "ndia, secularism must be viewed as a positive concept of e+ual treatment of and respect for all religions. "t was never born out of the conflict between the Church and the $tate. "t was perhaps rooted in "ndian/s own past history and culture, a very likely response to her pluralism or the desire of the founding fathers to be just and fair to all communities irrespective of their numbers. Kery often, in our common parlance, the term secularism therefore is used merely as an opposite of .communalism/.

The original text of the preamble as adopted by the Constitutent Assembly did not contain the word .secular/ )ike the word .socialist/, it was also inserted as an additional adjective before .republic/ by the ,orty%second Constitutional Amendment Act during the *mergency. The meaning sought to be given to the term has been that of Sarva +harm Sambhava i.e. treating all religions alike or giving e+ual respect to all religions, instead of &harm 6irpeksh or Panth 6irpeksh i.e. $tate neutrality in matters of religion. This, however, does not mean that the stae has no say whatsoever in matters of religion. )aws can be made for regulating the secular affairs of temples, mos+ues and other places of worship and maths :$.P. 8ittal v.1nion of "ndia :;<FCA ; $C'=?<A. *ven ac+uisition by the state of a place of worship 9temple, mos+ue or church%cannot be said to be against secularism :"smail ,aru+ui v. 1nion of "ndia :;<<@A E $CC CE>A. This was the natural and the only possible interpretation because the hard facts of the "ndian situation made the !estern concept of secularism entirely in applicable. $ecularism in our context only means that ours was a nontheocratic state, that the state as such does not have its own religion, that in its eyes all religions are e+ual and that it world make no distinction between citi(ens on grounds of religion. -ustice 7ajendragadkar defined secularism of the "ndian Constitution to mean e+uality to right to all citi(ens as citi(ens with their religion being entirely irrrelevant in the matter. The $tate# he said doses not owe loyalty to any particular religion as such5 it is not irreligious or anti religious5 it gives e+ual freedom to all religions#. "ndian sesularism sought to establish a rational synthesis between the legitimate function of religion and the legitimate and expanding function of the $tate#. 8.C $etalvad also believed that under a secular $tate all citi(ens are to be treated alike and not discriminated against on account of their religion. 2efore the ,orty%second amendment, the only mention of the word .secular/ in the Constitution was in article ?D:?A wherein $tate had been empowered to regulate or restrict any .secular activity/ associated with religious practice. 0bviously, here the connotation of .secular/ was .non%religious/ or pertaining to matters other than purely religious. The forty%second Constitutional Amendment Act which added the word secular did not attempt to define it. "t was, however,
10

felt that the addition had the effect only of affirming and clarifying what was believed to be already present as a basic feature of the Constitution. "n the kesavananda 2harti and 8inerva 8ills cases, secularism came to be mentioned as a basic feature. Also, it was inherent in the guarantee of freedom of religion as a fundamental right. "n st. Lavier College society Ks. $tate of 7ujarat, it was held by the $upreme Court in ;<=@ that even though the Constitution did not speak of a secular state there could be no doubt that the Constitution makers wanted to establish such a state :A"' ;<=C $C ;@E;5 A"' ;<F> $C ;=F=5 A"' ;<=@ $C ;CF<A. The Constitution :@Dth AmendmentA 2ill sought to lay down that secular and democratic character of the Constitution would be regarded as being among the basic features of the Constitution. 3owever, before the 2ill was enacted as the @@ th Amendment, the list of basic features was dropped. This abortive 2ill had also tried to define secular republic to mean a republic in which there is e+ual respect for all religions. Also, apart from using the word secular in the preamble, our Constitution does not anywhere categorically say that religion and politics would not be allowed to be mixed or that religious issue, funds and places of worship would not be allowed to exploited for political ends. "n the $hah Banu case, the law%makers yielded to the pressure of fundamentalist 8uslim opinion and much against the lette and spirit of the Constitutional precepts of secularism or e+ual justice for all, 8uslim !omen :Protection of right of &ivorceAAct.;<FE was brought in to nullify the $upreme Court judgement :Ahmad Bhanv.$hah 2anu, A"';<FD $C <@DA. 6otwithstanding anything, the only operative interpretation of the term /secular/ in "ndian Constitution )aw now would be what can be gathered from the different provisions of the Constitution e.g. articles ;@,;D,;E,?D to ?F, @@ etc. The preamble itself even in its original unamended form contained the concept of liberty inter alia that of belief, faith and worship. "n other words, it stood for a solemn commitment to religious freedom for all. This was reinforced by the principles of e+uality of status and opportunity and of fraternity among all the people of "ndia.

11

The vision of the founding fathers was that of a nation transcending all diversities of religion, caste and creed. They were not hostile to religion but they hoped that it would be possible to forge political unity and that religious differences would not hamper nation building. The Constitution envisaged a new social order free from communal situation envisaged a new social order free from communal conflicts and based on justice, social, economic and political. "t visuali(ed a polity under which laws would not discriminate between citi(ens on grounds of religion, caste or the like. The Constitution sought to establish a .secular/ order under which the majority of the population did not enjoy any special privileges or preferential treatment at the hands of the $tate and the .religious/ rights of the minorities were protected in different ways. "t seems necessary that the term secularism be clearly defined in the Constitution itself, firmer legislation passed and already existing legislation firmly implemented for preventing misuse of religion for political purposes by any party or person. :,or the abortive attempt to amend the Constitution by the Constitution :F>th AmendmentA 2ill, ;<<C and for a fuller discussion of the topic see $ubhash C. Bashyap, &elinking 'eligion and Politics, 6ew &elhi ;<<C.A De!ocracy )ike .socialism/ or .secularism/, democracy also meant different things to different people. )iterally, the 7reek word .demos/ meant .the people/ and .Bratos/ meant .government/ or .rule/. &emocracy, therefore, meant government by the people against monarchy or dictatorship which were autocratic rule of one person, oligarchy or aristocracy being rule by the few. "ts basic postulates are that the sovereign power resides in the people, that irrespective of religion, caste, creed, colour or sex and irrespective of religion, caste, creed, colour or sex and irrespective of the level of economic, educational or professional background, all are e+ual in the eyes of law and that each individual is capable of governing oneself and of managing ones own affairs the way one deems fit. "n a democracy the people are supposed to be their own masters. They have an inalienable right to rule themselves, or to be ruled in the way they like and by the people they choose. &emocracy also recogni(es the fact that from time immemorial human beings have been fighting with each other for power or for supremacy. &emocracy
12

tries to substitute a more civili(ed manner of fighting. "t is substitution of the methods of discussion and persuasion for methods of armed conflict. The ballot substitutes the bullet5 we sit together, we talk and we discuss. !e try to persuade each other and win each other by force of our conviction, ideas and arguments. "n the ancient "ndian Killage 'epublics and the 7reek City $tates, all the citi(ens assembled together and decided issues of governance. People, thus, exercised their power directly in deciding matters of $tate and this kind of polity could be called direct popular democracy. "n this case, both legal and political sovereignty could be said to vest in the people. 2ut with the gradual increase in the si(e and population of the political units and ultimately with the advent of modern nation%states, it became impossible to arrange for all the people to assemble at a place to discuss matters of $tate and arrive at decisions smoothly. Also, matters of legislation and $tate administration grew more and more complex. All forms of direct democracy, therefore, soon became practically extinct from all over the world except for a few $wiss cantons where even issues whether schools should remain closed on Thursdays or the price of bread should be increased and the like are still decided by a popular vote. There may be a few referenda on very major international issues in some places. Also, there have been provisions in Constitutions for some countries :e.g. ,rance, "reland, -apan and $wit(erlandA where under referendum is provided for constitutional amendments. 2ut, by and large, the only issue on which the people at large in different countries vote these days at periodic intervals is selection of their representatives. 8odern democracy thus has of necessity to be indirect representative democracy where under government is carried on and laws are made by the elected representatives of the people. Thus, while democractic polity becomes one of the basic features of our Constitution which cannot be altered by any constitutional amendment5 there are many variants of democracy which can be considered e+ually representative and legitimate. !e have adopted what is called representative parliamentary democracy. The founding fathers tried to provide for the fullest representation by enfranchising all the vast adult population of the country without any literacy, property, income tax, or sex criteria. This is borne out by the provisions for universal adult franchise
13

with all adults men and women% of ;F Mears and above having the right to vote :article C?EA and the executive being responsible to the popular house of the legislature Harticles =D:CAand ;E@:?AI. Re#"$lican C%aracter The concept of .republic/ is that of a state, in which the people are supreme, there is no privileged class and all public offices are open to every citi(en without any discrimination. There is no hereditary ruler and the head of the $tate is elected by the people for a fixed term. 3e is usually called the President of the 'epublic. ,or cooley, a republican form of government is a government by representatives chosen by the people. "n the words of -ustice 3idayatullah4 A 'epublic is a $tate in which the supreme power rests in the final analysis with the people and not with a single individual like a king or the like.# &emocratic republic may, therefore, broadly mean a $tate with an elected head and a government by the representatives of the people. According to 8adison in the ,ederalist4 'epublic is a government which derives its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour. "t is the widest sense that the Preamble $peaks of "ndia being a 'epublic. !ith the commencement of the Constitution on ?E -anuary ;<D>, "ndia ceased to be a dominion and no more owed any allegiance to the crown. The head of the 1nion is a President who is elected for a fixed term by an electoral college of the representatives of the people. All citi(ens are e+ual in the eyes of law, there is no privileged class and all public offices are open to every citi(en without any distinction of race, caste, sex or creed. Me!$er %i# o& t%e Co!!on'ealt%( *ven though after "ndependence, "ndia decided to remain a member of the Commonwealth of 6ations, it did not in any way compromise her position or imply any diminution of her status as a sovereign nation or as a 'epublic. "n fact, it was the Commonwealth which was transformed. ,rom the 2ritish Common wealth, it became the Common wealth of 6ations which was to be a free association of e+ual and fully sovereign $tates with the Crown being accepted only as a symbol of the free association. The Common wealth specifically recogni(ed "ndia/s status as a sovereign independent 'epublic. The new Commonwealth in
14

the words of 6ehru was an agreement by free will# which could be terminated by free will# at any time. "t did not therefore5 affect the sovereign, democratic or republican nature of the $tate. Social an) Econo!ic De!ocracy( &emocracy conceived in merely political terms meant the right f every citi(en to freely vote at periodic elections. The .one man, one vote/ principle applied in all democratic elections emanated from the recognition of e+ual rights of all men% whether highly educated or illiterate, experts, technocrats, industrialists or labourers. ,or our founding fathers, however democracy did not mean merely political democracy or the people/s right to periodically vote to elect their representatives. !ithout social and economic democracy, political democracy had no meaning in a poor country like "ndia. ,or &r. Ambedkar, social and economic democracy was the real aim and ultimate goal. 3e said that parliamentary democracy was meaningless unless it was geared to achieving the real goal of economic democracy. -awaharlal 6ehru had observed later that &emocracy of his conception was only a means to an end. The end was the good life for the individual which must include a certain satisfaction of the essential economic needs. 0nly in the measure that democracy succeeds in solving the economic problems, does it succeed even in the political field. "f the economic problems are not solved then the political structure democracy, we must progress to economic democracy which means# working for a certain measure of well being for all. "t could be called a !elfare $tate. 2ut, it also means working for a certain measure of e+uality of opportunity in the economic sphere#. This is made clear by the words of the Preamble which speak of securing to all citi(ens of the 'epublic .-ustice, social, *conomic and Political/. *" tice The Preamble Promises -ustice to all citi(ens. -ustice means harmoni(ation of interests between the individuals, between groups and between the individuals and groups on the one hand and interests of the community on the other. 8ost significantly, the Preamble place -ustice higher than the other principles of )iberty, *+uality and ,raternity. The concept of justice in the Preamble is indeed very wide. "t is not confined to the narrow legal justice administered by the courts. 0ur
15

courts are, after all, only courts of law. -ustice is defined or elaborated as social, economic political, again giving precedence to social and economic over political justice. The Preamble is designed to reali(e socio%economic justice to all people including workmen. ('ll India Statutory Cor-oration v. United 2abour Union, 'I( !""# SC 034%. $ocial justice implies that all citi(ens are treated e+ually irrespective of their status in society as a result of the accident of birth, race, caste, religion, sex, title etc. Article ;D Prohibits discrimination or disability in the matter of access to public Places. Article CF enjoins the $tate to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the nation life#. "n the words of -awaharlal 6ehru4 $ocial justice has always exercised an appeal to sensitive persons. The basic attraction of 8arxism for millions of people was not, " think, its attempt at scientific theory but its passion for social justice#. Provision for humane conditions of work, maternity relief, leisure , resuction of wide disparities, promoting of economic interests and a decent standard of living for the economic interests and a decent standard of living for the worker sections and backward classes, minimum wage, banning of forced labour :article?C and @CA were all directed towards social justice. H$adhuram v. Polin, A"' ;<F@ $C ;@=;5 )ingappa v.$tate of 8aharashtra, A"' ;<FD $C CF<I. *conomic -ustice would re+uire that the rich and the poor are treated alike and that efforts are made to bridge the gap between them. "n pursuance of the objective of economic justice, article C< directs the $tate to try to secure that the citi(ens have and ade+uate means of livelihood, that ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good, that operation of the@ economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment, that there is e+ual pay for e+ual work for both men and women, that women and children are not abused and citi(ens are not forced by economic necessity into vocations unsuited to their age or strength, and that the children are given

16

opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in freedom and dignity and childhood and youth are protected against exploitation etc. "n fact, various other articles in Part "K of the Constitution :articles CEtoD;A are also directed towards securing a new social and economic order imbued with justice. Thus, there are provisions for right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases, for just and humane condition of work and maternity relief, for living wage etc. ,or workers, for free and compulsory education of children, for promotion of educational and economic interests of weaker sections, for separations of judiciary from executive etc. Political justice means e+ual share to all citi(ens in the rights to participation in the political process without any distinction of race, caste, creed, religion or place of birth. Article ;E guarantees e+uality of opportunity in matters of public employment and articles C?D and C?E provide for e+ual rights to all adults to participate in elections. ,ounding fathers like 6ehru and Ambedkar were +uite clear in their minds that political justice was meaningless without economic justice. "n our society ridden with religious, caste and creed discriminations, even economic justice was not enough unless it was coupled with social justice. &r. Ambedkar had said4
0n ?Eth -anuary, ;<D> we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. "n Politics, we will have e+uality and in social and economic life we will have ine+uality. "n politics, we will be recogni(ing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. "n our social and economic life, we shall by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.

Li$erty &erived from the )atin word .liber/, liberty taken literally would mean freedom from captivity, imprisonment, slavery, serfdom or despotism. As conceived in the liberal western traditions and in the context of doctrines of laisse(%faire, liberty was largely a negative concept. "t meant absence of restraint on freedom of trade and enterprise, e+uality of opportunity in trade and business, freedom of contract and competition. )iberty was conceived as absence of interference in individual freedom of action by the 7overnment. 2ut .liberty/ in the Preamble to our Constitution does not mean mere absence of restraint or domination. "t is a positive concept of the right to. )iberty of thought, expression, belief, fait and
17

worship#. "t comprehends various freedoms later cncreti(ed in the fundamental 'ights part of the Constitution and considered essential for the development of the individual and the nation. Thus, for example, article ;< guarantees protection of rights of freedom of speech, expression etc. !hile articles ?D%?F embody rights to freedom of religion including that of belief, faith, and worship. "n this positive connotation, liberty would mean freedom of the individual to do what one likes. 2ut, again .)iberty/ has to be distinguished from license. The liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship as elaborated in the fundamental rights part of the Constitution has to be so regulated as not to endanger the security of the $tate, public interest etc. E+"ality )eaders of the ,rench 'evolution believed that all men were e+ual in the eyes of law. !hether it protected or punished, it must do so without any regard to distinction of birth etc. Also, all citi(ens were e+ually eligible to all public offices, honours and positions strictly according to their capacities, virtues and talents only. .*+uality/ in political science terms does not mean that all men :and womenA are e+ual in all circumstances. There are bound to be physical, mental and economic differences. The concept embodied in our Preamble is only that of e+uality of status and opportunity. This has legal, social, political and economic aspects. All citi(ens are e+ual before law and enjoy e+ual protection of the laws of the land. There can be no discrimination between one person and another on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth in the matter of access to public places and public employment. All citi(ens are e+ually entitled to enjoy the political rights to vote and participate in the process of governance without any distinction. "n the economic field, e+uality means that for the same ability and same labour, the salary would also be the same. Also, one man or one class would also be the same. Also, one man or one class would not exploit other men or classes. The concept of e+uality of status and opportunity has been given concrete substance and shape in articles ;@ to ;F. Fraternity The ideals of justice, liberty and e+uality are relevant and meaningful only inasmuch as these promote a common feeling of brotherhood, of "ndian fraternity,
18

of being sons of same 8other "ndia despite all the racial, linguistic, religious and other diversities of many sorts. Provisions relating to common citi(enship are directed towards strengthening "ndian fraternal feeling and building a strong "ndian fellowship. The fundamental rights guaranteed to all citi(ens without any discrimination and the directive Principles directed at achieving social and economic e+uality are also designed to promote fraternity. The concept has been more specifically elaborated in the new Part "K A of the Constitution laying down the ,undamental &uties of the citi(ens. "t casts a duty on every citi(en inter alia to promote among all the people of "ndia harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood and of belonging to one "ndian family transcending all religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities. "n fact, the concept of fraternity is far wider than the concept of secularism. "t goes beyond separation for all religions etc. 1nfortunately, not enough importance has been attached by the jurists and judges to this concept. $peaking on the need for the recognition of the principle of fraternity, &r.Ambedkar remarked in the Constituent Assembly4 !hat does fraternity meanN ,raternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all "ndians% of "ndians being one people. "t is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. "t is a difficult thing to achieve. There is also an international aspect of fraternity which takes us to the concept of universal brotherhood, the ancient "ndian ideal of 5asudhaiv Kutumba.am 9 of the entire world being a family. This has been elaborated in article D; of the Constitution under the &irective Principles. Dignity o& t%e In)ivi)"al ,raternity was expected to preserve and promote the dignity of the individual. "n the minds of the founding fathers, dignity of the individual was of supreme importance. The objective was to improve the +uality of life for the individual by guaranteeing the fundamental rights of freedom, e+uality etc. and by issuing guidelines to the $tate in the form of directive Principles to so orient its policies as to provide to all citi(ens, inter alia ade+uate means of livelihood, just and human conditions of work and a decent standard of life. Article ;= as a fundamental right was directed at abolishing the practice of untouchability which was an affront to

19

human dignity. To enforce any of his fundamental rights and his individual dignity a person/s could approach even the $upreme Court directly. Unity an) Integrity o& t%e Nation "n order to safeguard the dignity of the individual, we need to build the nation and protect its unity and integrity. "t was only through a spirit of common brotherhood and fraternity that we could hope to build national unity in a highly pluralistic and heterogenous society. Also, without unity and integrity of the national, we could not succeed in our efforts at economic development and could not hope to preserve either democracy or the independence of the country and the honour of the countrymen. Article D; A, therefore, appropriately makes it the duly of every citi(ens to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of "ndia and promote harmony and brotherhood. At least in matter which involves threat to the unity and integrity of the nation, it is expected of every citi(en to forget all differences and rise above all considerations of self%interest. "f this does not happen, nation building becomes an impossible. Concl" ion Thus, an analysis of the various concepts and terms in the Preamble shows that the noble words of our Preamble represent the +uintessence, the philosophy the ideals or the soul of the entire Constitution of "ndia. 0ther parts and Provisions of the Constitutions are only an elaboration and an attempt to give concrete shape, content and meaning to the words of the preamble. 6o wonder that the $upreme Court found that the Preamble contained some of the basic features of the Constitution which could not be altered even by an amendment of the Constitution under article CEF. "t is, however, felt that words like/ socialist/, secular/ etc. used in the Preamble are very ambiguous and our polity has suffered greatly due to their having not been precisely defined in the Constitution. "t may, therefore be most advisable to define them through a constitutional amendment H,or an analysis of how far the principles and values embodied in the Preamble have been fulfilled in practice se $ubhash C. Bashyap :edA4 Constitutional 'eforms, 6ew &elhi, end. ed., ?>>@5 2asic Constitutional Kalues, 6ew &elhi ;<<E5 and The case for a &ivorce between 'eligion and Politics in 3induism and $ecularism ed. 2y Arvind $harma, Palgrave, 6.M., ?>>;I.
20

21