In which case, the Preamble of the Constitution of India was considered as a "part of constitution" by the Supreme Court?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 2:

Detailed explanation of why it is correct — include conceptual, or contextual depth:
The correct answer is the **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973)**. This landmark judgment, decided by the largest bench (13 judges) in the history of the Supreme Court of India, fundamentally redefined the relationship between the Parliament and the Constitution. In its verdict, the Supreme Court explicitly overturned its earlier stand from the Berubari Union case and held that the Preamble is, in fact, a part of the Constitution. The Court recognized the Preamble as containing the "Basic Structure" or fundamental framework of the Constitution, which Parliament cannot destroy or alter through its amending power under Article 368. This decision established the Preamble's significant constitutional importance, not just as a statement of goals, but as a crucial interpretive tool and a part of the supreme law of the land, affirming that its ideals reflect the founding philosophy of the Republic.

The incorrect option is 1:
The **Berubari Union case (In re Berubari Union, 1960)** is incorrect because the Supreme Court, in this case, actually held the opposite of the question's premise. When examining whether the Preamble could be used to justify the Parliament's power to cede Indian territory, the Court stated that the Preamble was merely a "key to open the minds of the makers" and therefore **was not a part of the Constitution**. This case served as the historical precedent that was later overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati judgment regarding the status of the Preamble. This early view limited the Preamble's constitutional significance to a general statement of intent rather than a binding constitutional provision.

The incorrect option is 3:
The **Golaknath v. State of Punjab case (1967)** primarily dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights were "transcendental and immutable" and could not be amended by Parliament, even through Article 368. While this judgment set up a major conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary, it did not directly address or change the status of the Preamble as a part of the Constitution. The focus was on protecting the fundamental rights from legislative erosion, not on defining the structure or status of the Preamble. The position that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution remained unchanged following this judgment.

The incorrect option is 4:
The **Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case (1951)** was the very first major challenge to the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court in this case upheld the validity of the First Constitutional Amendment Act, ruling that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute and that "law" under Article 13 (which protects Fundamental Rights) did not include Constitutional Amendment Acts. Like the Golaknath case, the Shankari Prasad case was focused entirely on the scope of the amending power and the Fundamental Rights, and it did not involve any examination or declaration regarding the Preamble being a part of the Constitution. It pre-dates the crucial Berubari and Kesavananda Bharati rulings that specifically debated the Preamble’s constitutional status.