DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

SESSION 2022-23
CONSTITUTION I: FINAL DRAFT
TITLE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE
INDIAN, CANADIAN, AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

NAME: KALPNA DR. ATUL TIWARI

ENROLLMENT NO.: 210101061 DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
BA LLB (3rd SEMESTER)

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY............................................................................6

PREAMBLE TO THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: AN OVERVIEW.........................................9

HISTORY OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION’S PREAMBLE..............................................9

THE AUTHORITY'S SOURCE:.................................................................................................9

THE NATURE OF THE STATE..............................................................................................10

SOVEREIGN.........................................................................................................................11

SOCIALIST............................................................................................................................11

SECULARISM.......................................................................................................................11

DEMOCRATIC......................................................................................................................12

REPUBLIC.............................................................................................................................13

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:......................................................13

JUSTICE................................................................................................................................13

LIBERTY...............................................................................................................................14

EQUALITY............................................................................................................................14

FRATERNITY.......................................................................................................................15

SPECIFICS OF THE ADOPTION............................................................................................15

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION’S PREAMBLE: AN OVERVIEW...................................18

THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY.............................................................................................18

THE STATE'S NATURE..........................................................................................................19

THE STATE'S OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................20

2|Page
 ELEMENTS OF ADOPTION:..............................................................................................22

PREAMBLE TO THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: AN OVERVIEW AND

COMPARISON WITH THE INDIAN PREAMBLE...................................................................23

THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY:............................................................................................24

THE NATURE OF THE STATE:.............................................................................................24

OBJECTIVES OF THE STATE................................................................................................24

Provincial welfare:.................................................................................................................24

Advancement of British Empire interests:.............................................................................25

ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT COMPONENTS......................................................................25

A COMPARISON OF THE PREAMBLES OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF CANADA, THE

UNITED STATES, AND INDIA..................................................................................................28

THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY:............................................................................................28

THE STATE'S NATURE:.........................................................................................................28

OBJECTIVES THAT THE STATE SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH:...........................................29

PARTICULARS OF ADOPTION:............................................................................................29

ADDITIONAL FACTORS........................................................................................................29

IS THE PREAMBLE A COMPONENT OF THE CONSTITUTION?.................................29

IS THE PREAMBLE AN INTERPRETATIONAL AID TO THE CONSTITUTION?.......29

RULE OF LAW:....................................................................................................................30

SUPREMACY OF GOD:.......................................................................................................30

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................31

3|Page
 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
PREAMBLES TO THE INDIAN,
CANADIAN, AND AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION
The ultimate standard—a constitution—is regarded as the source from which all other laws must
follow. Every other piece of legislation must comply with its requirements since the Constitution
is the main law. The Constitution's interpretation becomes even more crucial for this precise
reason.

When reading the Constitution or any other piece of law, for that matter, several construction
aids, both internal and external, are taken into consideration. The Preamble is one of the most
important internal building tools. A preamble is defined as “a sentence at the start of a
constitution or legislation that explains the purposes behind its creation and the goals it seeks to
achieve” in Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.1 A preamble acts as both an introduction to
the document's body of content and a summary of the creators' objectives and motives. The
preamble may be used to comprehend the constitution's aim and purpose as well as the
aspirations and desires of its citizens.

Understanding a government's structure, guiding principles, and objectives is essential to

comprehending the legal system of any country which can be understood with the help of the
constitution. The preamble can be studied to avoid the long study of the complete constitution
however it is a little problematic since the preamble contains the objectives and motives of the

1
“Preamble”, Black’s law dictionary (4th edition), <https://blacks_law.en-academic.com/37938/preamble > accessed
25th October 2022

4|Page
legislators in concise form and on the first reading it can point out different motives than what
legislatures wanted. Therefore, it should be read in accordance with the constitution’s provisions.

With the help of this comparative study, the objectives of various governments would be stated,
and the differences and similarities between the many parts of the government will be
highlighted.

The world's first democracy was established in the USA. In 1798, the USA's Constitution went
into effect. One of the oldest currently in use constitutions is that of Canada. The Constitution
Act of 1867 established the Canadian Constitution (also referred to as The British North America
Act, of 1867). Other developing democracies aspire to both of these countries since they both
have among the best legal systems in the world.

A federal system of government is used in Canada, India, and the USA as of the 1950
Constitution. The Indian Constitution's preamble is frequently referred to as a key to the
legislators' thoughts. The Preamble's significance has been emphasized several times, and
whenever there has been a disagreement between two or more provisions, the judiciary has
turned to the Preamble for guidance.

Preambles to the Indian, Canadian and American constitutions should be compared since, as has
already been mentioned, they provide an overview of what the constitution offers. The
comparison will take into account the preamble's status in addition to the different terminology
and idioms used throughout the text. The degree to which the preamble's substance has been
justified and how closely the constitution's provisions adhere to it are two more aspects that need
to be highlighted. It will also be important to see how the three federations' judiciaries have
interpreted the preamble. A preamble also gains importance for interpretation. Since analyzing
preambles is crucial to understanding the public law system, a comparison of the preambles of
three strong federations and democratic nations—the USA, Canada, and the Republic of India—
will have a lot of academic significance. This project aims to compare various nodes and
dimensions of the three preambles stated above.

5|Page
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
Any nation's preamble of the constitution represents the source of its government's authority as
well as its citizens' aspirations. These elements are adequate to highlight the significance of the
preamble. However, more explanation of the same will assist in setting the context for this paper.

Preambles to constitutions have been crucial in forming laws and policies from Plato's Laws to
common law and current legal systems. The preamble has increasingly been utilized in many
nations to constitutionalize unlisted rights. Preambles are becoming more binding, whether used
alone, in conjunction with other constitutional articles, as a source of rights in substance, or as a
guide for interpreting the constitution. Preambles are becoming a greater and more important
source of law for the courts. Although this trend is not new and has been around for many years
in certain countries, it is more recent in other countries.

As was already noted, the preamble serves as the constitution's beginning in the majority of
democratic nations. Although the introduction is sometimes referred to as "the preamble," there
are times when another phrase, such as the preface, may be used. On the other hand,
identification is focused on substance rather than vocabulary.2

Several countries do not utilize a formal prologue in their constitutions, but these countries
nonetheless have introductory paragraphs that serve a similar purpose. This finding leads to the
conclusion that adding a prologue to the constitution is a widespread practice among countries,
particularly among newly developing democracies.

Hans Kelsen3 claims that the prologue needs a specified topic rather than a certain position. The
following bearings can be used to roughly classify this content:

1. What is the source of the authority?

2. The state's nature
3. The goals the state wants to accomplish
4. Adoption-specific information
2
Live Orgad, ‘The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation’ (Constitutional Law, 2010)
<http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/714.full.pdf+html> accessed 15 September 2022
3
Hans Kelsen, ‘The Preamble of the Charter—a Critical Analysis” [1946] J. Pol. 134.

6|Page
Additionally, the supreme authority is mentioned in a few preambles. For instance, the preamble
of the Canadian Constitution has a different phrase for this purpose which is "the supremacy of
God."

The same will be covered in more detail in the project's following sections, and an effort will be
made to determine how far the expression of justice has been demonstrated by legislative
measures.

The preamble serves several purposes. First of all, it serves an educational function because it is
one of the most significant parts of the constitution that is discussed in public and educational
settings. Contrary to the constitution, which is often a lengthy text with complicated clauses, the
prologue is generally brief and written in more understandable language. The preamble also acts
as an explanation of the constitution's founding principles, its purpose for being, and its guiding
principles. The preamble also functions as a political tool for the development of a sense of
national identity and acts as a kind of "calling card" for the country. The preamble also has a
legal role. Preambles can be categorized into three categories in this section: ceremonial,
interpretative, and substantive.4

The original aim behind preambles is still up for dispute, and discussion, and is examined with
great curiosity, which is why a comparative study of preambles is crucial.

Preambles, according to Plato, should appeal to citizens' hearts and minds using both reason and
poetry to urge them to obey essential laws. Examining various political applications of
preambles, it can be said that today's preambles frequently strive to establish legitimacy by
outlining the history and goals of the law.5

A broad theory of law, and in particular, the fundamental questions of the goals and audiences of
legislation, may be built through an analysis of preambles. The legislation addresses several
audiences in the achievement of diverse goals. The legislation's most idealistic goal is to inform
individuals of their rights and responsibilities.6

4
ibid 1
5
KENT ROACH, ‘The uses of Preamble in legislation’ <http://www.lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/8178207-
47.1.Roach.pdf> accessed 19 Septmeber 2022
6
ibid 4

7|Page
A detailed study of preambles has been undertaken because of the intensity of their importance
and the emphasis placed on the necessity and value of a preamble. Additionally, comparing
preambles will assist disclose their structural characteristics, as well as help, analyze and
pinpoint the nation's overall objectives.

8|Page
PREAMBLE TO THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: AN
OVERVIEW
It will be important to review the main points and current state of the preamble to the Indian
constitution concerning certain articles in the constitution, significant rulings, and more recent
rulings before conducting comparison research.

HISTORY OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION’S PREAMBLE

The "Objective Resolution" of Nehru served as the inspiration for the Preamble of the Indian
Constitution. On December 13, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru submitted an impartial motion, and on
January 22, 1947, the Constituent Assembly approved it. When drafting the Preamble in light of
the "Objective Resolution," the assembly's drafting committee felt that the Preamble should only
define the fundamental characteristics of the new state and its core sociopolitical goals and that
the other issues covered by the resolution could be better addressed in the Constitution's
substantive provisions. The ultimate intention of the drafters of the Constitution was to establish
a welfare state and an egalitarian society that would be a reflection of the aspirations of the
Indian people who sacrificed so much to win the country's freedom. In Golak Nath v. the State
of Punjab7, Chief Justice Subba Rao stated that "The preamble to an Act lay the primary
purposes which the statute is supposed to achieve."

Unlike the constitutions of Canada and the United States of America, the Indian Constitution has
a long preamble. Clarifying who created the constitution, where it came from, what the ultimate
justification for it is, and what kind of polity the constitution seeks to construct are all goals of
the preamble.8

The first step is to identify the precise components of the prologue while keeping in mind the
four aspects of a preamble.

THE AUTHORITY'S SOURCE:

Finding the source of the government's authority isn't a challenging task because the Indian
preamble starts with the phrase "We the people of India." The constitution is considered to have
been created by the people. The preamble's introductory sentence is what gave rise to the idea. It

7
[1967] SCR (2) 762 (SC).
8
ibid 7

9|Page
will be interesting to examine Prof. Wheare's thoughts in this regard. In India, "the people"
approve the Constitution "in our Constituent Assembly," although the members of that Assembly
were handpicked by a small minority of Indians, and the Constitution was never submitted to a
popular vote. Speaking of "the people" passing a constitution "in" or "through" a constituent
assembly is it not, in any event, unreal? Rarely are the people ever asked to endorse a
constitution that was purportedly passed in their name. A constitution also binds not just the
institutions it forms but also the people themselves when it is passed, even if it has been put to
the people for ratification. If they want to do so, they may only do so through the procedures
outlined in the Constitution.9

In the case of Keshavanand Bharti v. the State of Kerala 10, a similar issue was brought up.
The contention was that the constitution was not put up for ratification and that the members of
the Constituent Assembly were chosen with a very narrowly defined franchise. It is unnecessary
to become involved in this debate, though, as the Indian Independence Act of 1947
unquestionably provided the Indian Constituent Assembly with a legal right to create the
Constitution of India. The debate over whether the Indian Independence Act of 1947 or the
People, as stated in the preamble, is the source of the Constitution's legitimacy is simply
academic.11

It should be emphasized that the Constituent Assembly, which drafted the Constitution, was
reasonably representative of all demographic groups despite neither being directly elected by the
people nor having the Constitution draught put to a vote. As a result, the Constitution's ultimate
source and source of authority are the people themselves. The phrase "the people of India" in the
preamble were used by the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Madangopal12 as
evidence that the Indian Legislature has the authority to pass laws. It was confirmed that the
people's authority, who own ultimate sovereignty, is the foundation of the Constitution.

9
Wheare, Modern Constitutions (Oxford University Press 1966) 89-90.
10
[1973] AIR 1461 (SC)
11
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India – A Critical Commentary (4th Ed. vol. 1 Universal Law Publishing Co.
Ltd. 2004) 278-279.
12
[1954] AIR 15 (SC)

10 | P a g e
THE NATURE OF THE STATE
To describe the state's nature, the Indian preamble includes several particular phrases. Sovereign,
socialist, secular, democratic, and republic have all been used. For better comprehension, each
concept will be covered independently.

SOVEREIGN
India is a sovereign state that does not depend on or subjugate any other country. It has no
superior authority and is free to govern its own internal and external matters. Being a sovereign
state, India is permitted to either purchase foreign land or cede a section of its territory to another
country. The court ruled that India is sovereign since the Constitution does not acknowledge the
superiority of any other nation over India in Synthetics and Chemical Ltd. V. State of U.P 13.
The result of this sovereignty is that the State has the authority to enact laws by the Constitution's
provisions on any topic. In Janardan Singh v. the State of Bihar14, the same was reiterated.

SOCIALIST
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act of 1976 amended the Indian Constitution to include the
word "socialist" in its Preamble. The ideology supporting governmental ownership and control
of the means of production, distribution, and exchange is what is meant by the term "socialist" in
its literal sense. However, the Constitution uses the phrase in a different context. Prime Minister
Mrs. Indira Gandhi said that the term "socialist" was merely used to denote that "a better living
for the people of India" or "equality of opportunity" was the state's primary objective in India.
She, therefore demonstrated that India has its unique socialism and that her only concern was for
her people to live better.15

The Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India16 stated that "the underlying structure of
socialism is to offer a decent quality of living to the working people, and especially to provide
from cradle to grave." This, among other economic plans, envisioned income equality and fair
distribution. According to the Supreme Court, the main goal of a socialist state is to eradicate
inequality in wealth, position, and way of living. So, democratic socialism aspires to eradicate
poverty, illiteracy, sickness, and opportunity inequality. 17

13
[1990] AIR 1927 (SC).
14
CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2008
15
Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India, (Allahabad Law Agency, 2008) 27.
16
[1979] AIR 25 (SC)
17
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, (8th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co., Delhi, 2008) 3.

11 | P a g e
SECULARISM
While we have misinterpreted secularism to imply negating all faiths, the original meaning of
secularism is in Gandhi's phrase “Sarva-Dharma-Sambhav”, which means equal treatment and
respect for all religions.18 Secularism means that all religions are treated equally and that all
people have the right to practice their religion by their own beliefs. The Supreme Court of India
summarized the notion of secularism as "Our understanding of Secularism, in brief, is that the
State would have no religion."19

The Constitution's Articles 25 to 30 also mention the idea of secularism through the Right to
Freedom of Religion. The Supreme Court in St. Xavier's College v. the State of Gujarat 20
stated that “India is neither anti-God nor pro-God; it treats the devout, the hostile, and the atheist
equally.” It excludes God from state affairs and guarantees that no one will face discrimination
based on religion and that each individual is free to approach God or heaven in his or her manner
and that he or is free to worship God according to his or her conscience.21

One of the fundamental elements of the Constitution, outside the scope of the Parliament's
modifying authority, is proclaimed to be secularism. 22 It entails respecting all faiths. 23 To
summarizes, we may say that the Indian Constitution encourages people to pursue the religion of
their choosing while recognizing no particular religion and treating all religions equally.

DEMOCRATIC
We, the people of India, and the phrase "grant to ourselves this Constitution" in the preamble's
final clause both make apparent the democratic ethos that permeates the whole document. The
supreme power will rest with the people of India, who choose their representatives at all tiers of
government (federal, state, and municipal). “One man, one vote” is another name for the
universal adult franchise system. Democracy can be practiced directly or indirectly. In a direct
democracy, the people have both legal and political sway. In an indirect democracy, the people
elect the representatives who will manage the government on their account. Our constitution
guarantees representative democracy, which is another word for indirect democracy. A
18
P.K. Majumdar & R.P Kataria, Commentary on the Constitution of India (10th Edition, Volume 1, Orient
Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2009) 196.
19
Bal Patil v. Union of India, [2005] AIR 374 (SC).
20
[1974] AIR 1389 (SC).
21
Narender Kumar, The Constitutional Law of India, (1st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009) 21.
22
S.R. Bommani v. Union of India, [1994] AIR 1918 (SC).
23
M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, [1995] AIR 605 (SC).

12 | P a g e
successful democracy is predicated on informed citizens, according to the Supreme Court in
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms24. Without free and fair elections and
informed individuals, democracy cannot endure.

REPUBLIC
Republic is the opposite of a monarchy. A republic is a form of government in which the people
elect the president. According to the constitution, India will have an elected president as its
leader. There will be no hereditary president of India. Without exception, all governmental
offices shall be accessible to all citizens.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:

Four goals are outlined in the Indian preamble: justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

JUSTICE
The expression “Justice” briefly speaking is the harmonious reconcilement of individual conduct
with the general welfare of society. An act or conduct of a person is said to be just if it promotes
the general well-being of the community. Therefore, the attainment of the common good as
distinguished from the good of individuals is the essence of justice.

The Constitution of India secures three kinds of justice for its citizens which are as follows:

I. Social justice

The term "social justice" refers to the elimination of all disparities, including those resulting from
differences in position, money, opportunity, race, religion, sex, and other factors. According to
the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labor
Union25, the objective of social justice is to achieve a significant degree of social, economic, and
political equality, which is both a constitutional need and a reasonable expectation. It was
believed that social justice was a dynamic tool for easing the pain of the weak, Dalit, tribal, and
disadvantaged groups of society and elevating them to the level of equality so they might live
their lives with dignity. The Court determined that social justice was envisioned in the Preamble
and Article 38 of the Constitution as the key to ensuring that life is meaningful and livable with
human dignity.

24
[2002] AIR 2112 (SC).
25
[1997] AIR 645 (SC).

13 | P a g e
 II. Political justice

The absence of any arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between persons in political

concerns is referred to as political justice. The Universal adult suffrage system has been accepted
by the constitution. Every Indian citizen who is at least eighteen years old has the right to vote.

III. Economic justice

Justice from an economic perspective is referred to as economic justice. It seeks to create

economic democracy and a welfare state, for example, by enforcing equal pay for equal work.

LIBERTY
Liber, which means free in Latin, is the source of the term liberty. The French Revolution in
1789 brought the concept of liberty to the frontline, and its leaders defined it as "the ability to do
as anything that does not harm another is liberty."26

The word "liberty" can be used both positively and negatively. Libertarians define liberty as the
absence of any excessive or unreasonable state interference with an individual's right to the
action. In a positive definition, liberty refers to those liberties or privileges that are seen as
necessary for a person to realize their full potential and for the improvement of society at
large.27 The freedom of thought, speech, religion, faith, and worship—all of which are seen as
crucial to an individual's growth within a society—are all purportedly protected by the Indian
Constitution. Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution, which discuss the right to freedom of religion,
and Article 19 (1) (a), which addresses the freedom of expression, both represent the same basic
idea.

EQUALITY
Equality is the basis of democracy. The formulation of the doctrine is the product of the
eighteenth century. In the American Declaration of Independence (1776), it is described that “we
hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” The Declaration of Rights of
Man (1789) issued by the National Assembly in France during the French Revolution states that
“Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Equal opportunities
to all are necessary for the fullest development of personality of the people.”28

26
SR. Myneni, Political Science for Law Students (2nd Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2006) 168.
27
Narender Kumar, The Constitutional Law of India (1st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009) 22.
28
SR. Myneni, Political Science for Law Students, (2nd Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2006) 183.

14 | P a g e
Equality of status and opportunity is secured for the people of India by abolishing all distinctions
or discriminations by the State, between citizen and citizen, on the ground of religion, race, caste,
sex, or place of birth and by throwing open ‘public places’ to all the citizens. 29 This has been
provided for in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and the same talk about equality
before the law and prohibition of discrimination. The Constitution also abolishes untouchability
and titles through Articles 17 and 18 respectively. This helps in securing equality of opportunity
in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State under Article 16
of the Constitution of India.

FRATERNITY
A sentiment of universal brotherhood among all groups of people is referred to as fraternity .
They all have the impression of being children of the same mother and the same soil. It becomes
much more crucial in a nation like India with such a diverse population of ethnicities, faiths,
languages, and cultures.

According to H.M. Seervai, the Constitution does not explicitly mention "Fraternity" as an
object. Despite this, several provisions foster a sense of common brotherhood, like the freedom
to travel about, the ability to live and work anywhere in India, and the freedom to engage in any
profession, trade, or business.

SPECIFICS OF THE ADOPTION

The Preamble conveys the crucial historical information that the Constitution was established on
November 26, 1949, in its final paragraph. On this date, the President of the Constituent
Assembly signed the Constitution, which thereafter became official.

The Indian Constitution's Preamble has been the focus of several judicial
interpretations. Furthermore, a consideration of the Indian preamble would be incomplete
without addressing the two crucial issues the court raised.

1) Whether or not preamble is the part of the constitution?

This issue was dealt with by the judiciary in two important cases, the Re Berubari case and the
Keshvananda Bharti case.

29
Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (1st edition, Allahabad Law Agency, 2008) 34.

15 | P a g e
Re Berubari Case:30 Berubari case was the Presidential Reference Under Art. 143(1) of the
Constitution of India on the implementation of the Indo-Pak agreement relating to the Berubari
union and exchange of enclaves which come up for consideration by a bench consisting of eight
judges headed by B.P.Sinha, C.J. Justice Gajendragadkar delivered the unanimous opinion of the
court. Quoting the story, the eminent Constitutional jurist, the court held that the Preamble to the
Constitution containing the declaration made by the people of India in the exercise of their
sovereign will, no doubt is “a key to open the minds of framers of the Constitution” which may
show the general purposes for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution but the
Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.

Beriberi case was relied on in the Golaknath case, Wanchoo, J. said- On a parity of reasoning we
think that the Preamble cannot prohibit or control in any way or impose any implied prohibitions
or limitations on the bar to amend the Constitution contained in Article 368.

However, the same question was brought up before the court again in the case of Keshavanand
Bharti31. The writ petition was heard by a bench of 13 judges, who reached the following
conclusion:

That the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of the Constitution;

That the Preamble is not a source of power or a source of limitations or prohibitions;

The Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statutes and also in the
interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.

Therefore, Kesavanada Bharti settles that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution. The same
has been reaffirmed in the case of Sudarshan Rajput v. U.P. State Road Transport Corp.32

2) Whether or not the preamble can be amended?

The issue was raised in the case of Kesavananda Bharti 33, where the Court held that the preamble
can be amended, but the basic feature of the preamble cannot be amended. The court observed

30
Re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves v. Unknown, [1960] AIR 845 (SC).
31
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225 (SC).
32
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10353-10354 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010 before the
Supreme Court
33
ibid 20

16 | P a g e
the following: "The edifice of our constitution is based upon the basic element in the Preamble.
If any of these elements are removed the structure will not survive and it will not be the same
constitution and will not be able to maintain its identity."

Therefore, the Parliament has the power to amend the Preamble, but that power is not absolute
and is subject to the check of basic structure.

Therefore, the chapter above provides a thorough summary of the characteristics of the Indian
Preamble. The next chapters will discuss the preambles of the US and Canadian constitutions,
classifying their features according to the content, and contrasting them with the Indian Preamble
in each of those areas.

17 | P a g e
THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION’S PREAMBLE: AN
OVERVIEW
One of the most significant legacies given by the USA to the world is the U.S. Constitution, and
its preamble could be its most crucial section. Therefore, learning about its history and current
legal standing is extremely fascinating. The preamble that was originally adopted in 1787 at the
Philadelphia Convention has been changed.

The USA Constitution, which became operative in 1789, is the country’s supreme legislation.
The US Constitution's preamble is an introductory, condensed exposition of the guiding ideas.
The preamble outlines the Constitution's history, scope, and goals but does not grant any
authority to the government. The Preamble's text is as follows:

We the People of the United States, to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Preamble use is restricted since the courts do not construe it to provide any rights or powers that
are not expressly conferred in the Constitution.

THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY

The famous line "We the people of the United States" was not part of the original preamble;
instead, the states were identified as the source of authority. We the people is a phrase that
appears in the 1789 Constitution. They made it quite clear that Americans would define and
shape their nation, not a monarch or a dictator. The phrase "We the People" refers to all citizens
of the USA. This assertion's relevance reveals that the government's power was exclusively
provided by the legislators who framed the Constitution. Instead, the entire population of the
USA gives the government all of its power.

The relevance of "We the People" in the Preamble of the US Constitution should be highlighted
by comparing it to the Preamble of the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of
18 | P a g e
Confederation, the Preamble lacks this sentence and instead dives straight into the Articles' text
without even a hint of an introduction. The Preamble of the Articles noticeably omits the phrase
"We the People." The Constitution, on the other hand, asserts right away that it is of the people,
for the people, and by the people of the United States by beginning with "We the People." This
reading effectively results in a view of the Constitution as impacting the people directly and not
through laws imposed on the States, which interpretation is most strongly supported by the use of
"We the People" in the Preamble. In other words, those phrases indicate that the Constitution's
relationship to American individuals is direct and immediate, which means that the Constitution
and the government it establishes take precedence above all State governments. The words "We
the People" in the Preamble are frequently considered the strongest links between the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence since the Declaration of Independence was
written from the perspective of the people, not of any one person or government. The Preamble
of the Constitution begins with "We the People," underscoring the importance of the populace
and establishing the fact that they are the ones who provide the government with charity.
Another important aspect of the American Constitution is the fact that "We the People"—not
God or the Constitution—gives the government its authority.34

THE STATE'S NATURE

The words "perfect unity" are keywords in the preamble. As a result, the preamble confirms that
the United States is a union of states. The phrase "United States of America" from the Preamble
has been interpreted over time to describe the type of governing body that the Constitution
established. The "United States of America" is only one sovereign nation in terms of foreign
policy and international affairs, the SC decided. Individual states are not allowed to engage in
foreign policy since each state is a sovereign entity in and of itself. 35 Therefore, the word "union"
is valid since the United States is regarded as a single entity. The transition from the Articles of
Confederation to the Constitution may be seen in the phrase "to create more," which comes
before the words "perfect union." By creating a federal government with sufficient authority to
act directly upon citizens during this transition, as opposed to a government with severely
constrained authority that could only act directly upon citizens (for example, by imposing taxes)

34
Importance of We the People (LAWS) <http://Constitution.laws.com/we-the-people> accessed 17 August 2022
35
Chae Chan Ping v. the United States, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 606 (1889)

19 | P a g e
through the states, the "Union" was made "more perfect." 36 The Supreme Court has ruled that the
institution established is a government over the people rather than an agreement between the
States, even though the country is known as the "United States of America" and the Preamble
speaks of "perfecting the Union."37

THE STATE'S OBJECTIVES

1. To create a more perfect union: The phrases not only describe the character of the state, but
also one of its goals. The goal was to create a union that was greater and stronger than the one
that existed before the Constitution, or one that was "more perfect."

2. To establish justice: The important term in the second purpose, to "establish Justice," is
"establish," which obliquely implies that, unlike unity, justice did not previously exist. On the
surface, such a suggestion is exaggerated because trial by jury was the norm in American state
and municipal governments, which had functional court systems with independent
judges. Gouverneur Morris, like many other Framers, believed that the states had overreached
and had violated individual freedoms in numerous relevant ways, therefore he used the word
deliberately and meant what he intended. The two halves of the solution were the creation of an
independent Supreme Court, the institution of a federal court that was superior to that of the
states, and the outright banning of egregious state prayer practices to preserve law and order
inside the nation. 38

3. to ensure domestic tranquility: When seen in this light, the prologue is viewed in terms of the
functions and goals of the government, which might be listed as follows: to establish a nation
that is superior to all others and a real union of the states (a federal government rather than a
confederation of states);

i. to create a just society;

ii. to uphold a tranquil, lawful, and orderly society;

36
Lane Cnty. v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869)
37
Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 545 (1871)
38
Forrest McDonald, ‘Preamble’ (The Heritage Guide to the Constitution)
<http://www.heritage.org/Constitution#!/articles/0/essays/1/Preamble> accessed 17 August 2022

20 | P a g e
 iii. to defend itself against hostile opponents;

iv. to advance the welfare of its people generally; and

v. to sustain a free society for its people (past and present) so that the people will profit.

4. To ensure common defense: This implies that the government will have the authority to create
whatever armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, etc.) that are required to
defend Americans from foreign aggressors. It represents one of the reasons why many nations
have come together to form a union: to create a strong, coordinated military force to defend each
state individually. The phrase was written as the founders were persuaded that the country need a
stronger government, including a larger military, as a result of the thirteen states' weakness under
the Articles of Confederation, which existed before the Constitution. The Founders took care to
only provide the federal government with the few, restricted powers it needed to accomplish its
goals. The majority of powers are reserved for the states or the people under the Constitution. In
their opinion, it is better to maintain peace via strength than to allow conflict to break out due to
weakness from a military, economic, and moral standpoint.39

5. To advance general welfare: Ensuring the well-being of the populace as a whole is one of the
government's primary objectives. One of the reasons the Constitution was created, according to
the Founding Fathers, was to "advance the public good," as stated in the preamble. They were
saying that the Constitution did not favor any particular classes of people or special interest
groups, and neither did the powers assigned to the federal government. There were to be no
favored people or social groups. It was forbidden to support either minority or the
majority. Rather, the Constitution will indeed guarantee a free society where everyone would be
free and independent and enjoy the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
underlined in the Declaration of Independence, including rich and poor, financiers and shop
owners, workers and employers, farm owners and blacksmiths. 40 The promotion of public
welfare is listed as one of the main justifications for the formation of the U.S. Constitution in the
preamble. State statutes and constitutions also list the promotion of the common good as one of
39
Mackenzie Eaglen, ‘Why Provide for Common defense (The Heritage Foundation, 19 January
2011)<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/why-provide-for-the-common-defense> accessed 15
August 2022
40
General Welfare, ‘Law and Liberty’ <http://lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm> accessed 17 August 2022

21 | P a g e
their declared objectives. Only because it was written into the body of the U.S. Constitution did
the idea cause issue. "The Congress shall have the Power to levy and collect Taxes, Imposts, and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Défense and the general Welfare States,"
states Section 8 of Article I, the first clause. The General Welfare Clause, often known as the
Spending Power Clause, does not provide Congress with the authority to enact laws to promote
the general welfare of the nation; instead, the Tenth Amendment reserves the such authority to
the President. Instead, it just permits Congress to spend public funds for the benefit of the nation.

The restriction of federal authority, the fundamental concept that underlies this distinction,
eventually gave rise to significant controversy about the clause's interpretation.41

6. To guarantee the benefits of liberty to ourselves and future generations: In general, the
Constitution as a whole serves the purpose of protecting liberty since it enables the development
of a government of laws, and liberty without the law is worthless. However, the Framers of the
Constitution included particular protections in Article I, Sections 9 and 10, and Article III to
guard against specific threats to liberty. The restrictions in Section 9—against suspending the
writ of habeas corpus, against bills of attainder and ex post facto statutes, and against conferring
titles of nobility—were taken from the history of England. In addition, Article III, Section 2
ensured the right to a jury trial in criminal matters, while Section 3 strictly defined treason and
outlawed the corruption of blood. The freedoms that are protected here are personal freedoms,
not state freedoms as they were under the Articles of Confederation.42

ELEMENTS OF ADOPTION:

The Preamble makes no mention of its adoption or a specific date. Most people believe that the
preamble was adopted on July 4, 1789, the day the Constitution went into effect.

The American Preamble has nothing special to offer. The Preamble hasn't been utilized by the
Courts to interpret the Constitution's provisions because of its few elements. The Canadian
Preamble is examined in detail after the American Preamble.

41
James Follow, ‘America’s misunderstood mission: Promoting the general welfare’ (Daily Ko,s 2 November 2014)
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/02/1340978/-America-s-Misunderstood-Mission-Promoting-the-general-
Welfare> accessed 17 August 2022
42
Ibid 29

22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e
PREAMBLE TO THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: AN
OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON WITH THE INDIAN
PREAMBLE
The Canadian Constitution, which combines both codified laws and customs that have not been
codified, is the country's highest legislation. With its roots in the Magna Carta, it is one of the
oldest active constitutions in the world.43 The Constitution Act, of 1982, which incorporates the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the British North America Act, of 1867, was
signed by the Queen and the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister, in 1982.

The 1867 Act's Preamble states the following:

WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their
Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the
Interests of the British Empire

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not
only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also
that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared

And whereas it is expedient that Provision is made for the eventual Admission into the Union of
other Parts of British North America.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' preamble, which also serves as the preamble to
the Constitution Act of 1982, is as follows:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule
of law

43
Nathan Tilridge, Canada's Constitutional Monarchy: An Introduction to Our Form of Government, (Dundurn
Press, 2010) 54

24 | P a g e
Concerning both preambles, the following items may be determined:

THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY:

Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy is reflected in the BNA, published in 1867. The free
British colonies were made into the four provinces of the new federal Dominion of Canada with
the passage of this Act. It is not surprising that the preamble lacks any clauses defining the
Constitution's source of authority because the BNA was an Act of the British Parliament. The
past, on the other hand, reveals that the constitution is not a product of the people. Once more,
the BNA gave the Queen ownership of the Executive Government's power and authority.
Currently, Canada's monarch is Queen Elizabeth II (since 6 February 1952). The Queen, the
Senate, and the House of Commons make up the Parliament. The members of the Body of
Commons are chosen democratically, whereas the Senate is comparable to the upper house of the
Parliament. Thus, even though the preamble is quiet regarding the source of authority, the people
are what give the government its power.

THE NATURE OF THE STATE:

The Preamble's language (BNA, 1867) demonstrates that Canada is a Federal Dominion. Canada
is a federal state because the Constitution recognizes a separation of powers between the federal
and provincial governments. The second half of the term, which refers to Canada as a dominion,
was not discussed in this article. It is a dominion since it technically falls under the crown. The
Queen continues to be a member of Parliament. The Queen is hereby declared to retain her
position as head of the executive government and authority of and over Canada.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STATE

Provincial welfare:

According to the British North America Act of 1867, the provinces have primary control over
social assistance. The types of laws that each province's legislature may only enact include those
about a public reformatory (section 6), hospitals, asylums, charities, eleemosynary institutions
(section 7), provincial municipal institutions (section 8), property and civil rights (section 13), as
well as local and private matters (subsection 16). The Act only apportioned the different domains
of power, with less precision than its designers had planned to accomplish, with any further

25 | P a g e
action being discretionary rather than mandatory. Neither the Dominion nor the provinces were
required to offer social services as a result.44

Advancement of British Empire interests:

Canada was still a Crown dominion at the time the BNA, 1867, was passed. It is not surprising
that the words "promotion of the interest of the British Empire" were added to the preamble of
the Act because the British Parliament authorized the Act itself. The same was thought to be the
goal of the Canadian Constitution. The clause (Section 9) that grants the Queen administrative
authority might be interpreted as a reflection of the plan to advance the welfare of the British
Empire.

Similar to the American Preamble, none of Canada's Constitution Acts' preambles mentions the
Constitution's adoption date.

ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT COMPONENTS

1. Legislative and Executive Authorities: According to the preamble, the Constitution must
specify how the Legislative Authority will be established as well as the character of the
Executive branch of government. Thus, the prologue makes reference to Chapters II, III, and IV
of the BNA of 1867, which contain provisions relating to the Union, Executive Power, and
Legislative Power.

2. Future Admission to the Union: According to the preamble, the Constitution will include
provisions for the future admission of new provinces to the union after the passage of this Act.
The measures listed under Chapter XI of the Act strive to accomplish the same goal.

3. The supremacy of God: This is a pretty odd aspect of the Constitution Act of 1982's
Preamble. It has never been universally agreed upon whether the phrase "supremacy of God"
should be used. The following arguments can be made in this context: The fundamental issue
with the God clause is that, given the Charter's real substance, it encounters an impossibility.
More precisely, what it asserts either has no significance (and is therefore useless), or if it does, it
44
Angela W. Djao, ‘Constitutional Dilemma and Social Welfare Policy in Canada’ (The Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare December 2014)< http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1620&context=jssw>
accessed 16 August 2022

26 | P a g e
runs counter to the very ideals that the Charter is meant to uphold (in which case it is pernicious).
It is acceptable and sensible to question what exactly is meant by "God" in this context if the
assertion that Canada is established on "recognition of the sovereignty of God" has any validity.

There are problems here. Some may attempt to cram in a more "open-minded" reading and imply
that any "God(s)" will serve beautifully for this purpose, perceiving the potential of an
unacceptable degradation of fundamental Canadian principles (such as freedom of religion).
However, it is obvious that if this interpretation were to be adopted, the purported "foundations"
of our fundamental beliefs would crumble and disintegrate into a million (incoherent) pieces.
Such a foundation would wash away like sand. The fundamental reality that proponents of the
God clause must acknowledge is that a large portion of the population of Canada does not
believe in any sort of "God," while a large portion of those who do share the same core values as
those listed and defined in the Charter's body, which are freedom, equality, and the democratic
rule of law.45 The most important argument made against this statement is that the freedom of
conscience and religion is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And
a part of that independence was the right to atheism. The supremacy of God clause cannot be
defended in such a circumstance.

4. Rule of Law: The Constitution Act of 1982's preamble refers to the "rule of law." It alludes to
a collection of concepts rather than one specific notion. In the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis46,
the idea of the "rule of law" became a crucial constitutional pillar. Quebec Premier Maurice
Duplessis was ruled ineligible by the Supreme Court to illegally revoke Mr. Roncarelli's
restaurant liquor license. The court determined that when Premier Duplessis suspended
Roncarelli's license based only on the fact that he was a Jehovah's Witness, he went beyond what
was allowed by law. According to Frank Scott, a constitutional law professor at McGill who
defended Mr. Roncarelli before the Supreme Court, the case supports the idea that "all are equal
before the law" or, to put it more simply, "no public person has any power beyond what the law
imposes upon him." The "rule of law" has been named as one of the "underlying principles"
upon which Canada's Constitution is based by the Supreme Court in the Reference re Secession

45
Paul Russel, ‘‘The Supremacy of God does not belong in the Constitution (The Globe & Mail, June 11, 1999,)
<http://faculty.cbu.ca/rkeshen/Canadian%20Political%20Values/God%20in%20the%20Constitution.pdf> accessed
18 August 2022
46
[1959] S.C.R. 121

27 | P a g e
of Quebec.47 According to the Court, the "rule of law" ensures that the law always takes
precedence over people and governments and that any use of public authority must have a basis
in a specific legal rule. At its most fundamental level, according to the Court, the rule of law
protects people from "arbitrary governmental action"; in the Roncarelli case, it served in this
capacity. The Supreme Court even went so far as to say that the "rule of law," which serves as a
fundamental tenet of constitutional law, "may in some situations give birth to substantive legal
responsibilities." This raises the unsettling notion that a principle latent in Canada's constitutional
system might pre-empt otherwise constitutionally sound acts of Parliament or the legislatures. 48

After analyzing the material in the Preambles of India, the United States, and Canada, a
comparison between the three will be made in the next chapter.

47
([1998] 2 S.C.R. 217)
48
‘Rule of Law’ (The Centre for Constitutional Law Studies)
<http://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/ccs/index.php/pr/540-rule-of-law> accessed 18 August 2022

28 | P a g e
A COMPARISON OF THE PREAMBLES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF CANADA, THE UNITED STATES,
AND INDIA
The elements and importance of the Preambles of India, the United States, and Canada were
covered in the preceding three chapters. A comparison of the three Preambles may be performed
based on the knowledge gained from the research. Similar to the research, the comparison will be
based on the following four factors:

i. The authority’s source

ii. The State's nature

iii. Goals that the State wants to accomplish

iv. Adoption-specific information

THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY:

We the people are mentioned expressly in the Indian and American preambles. The existence of
these three phrases makes it very evident that the nation's citizens provide the government with
its authority. The phrase "we the people" alludes to the population of both nations who are
endowed with political rights. There is no such explicit reference in the Canadian Preamble. The
Queen still holds a position in the Parliament even though the House of Commons is
democratically elected. Furthermore, the phrase "we the people" is crucial since it demonstrates
that the Constitution was created by the populace. However, the Canadian Constitution was
adopted by the British Parliament (BNA, 1867), therefore its absence is not surprising.

THE STATE'S NATURE:

The adjectives sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republican are all used to
characterize the essence of the state in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution in a very beautiful
way. Every phrase is justified by the Constitution's requirements. In a similar circumstance, the

29 | P a g e
word "union" is the only one that matters in the American Preamble. Although the United States
is a federal, democratic, and secular state, none of those concepts is mentioned in the Preamble.
Similar to the American Preamble, the Canadian Preamble simply uses the words "federal" and
"dominion." As a result, although the Indian Preamble on the one hand gives a very clear image
of the essence of the state, it is challenging (and in some cases impossible) to interpret the same
by reading the American and Canadian Preambles.

OBJECTIVES THAT THE STATE SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH:

It is well known that all three counties are welfare states. The preambles of the American and
Indian constitutions quite precisely outline the general goals that the state must work toward. In
the Indian Preamble, it is stated that there should be equality of position, opportunity, and
fraternity as well as the pursuit of justice in the social, political, and economic arenas. To
"establish justice," "ensure domestic quiet," "spread universal happiness," and "secure the
benefits of liberty for themselves and their descendants," the country must struggle to achieve so,
as stated in the Preamble of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, the Canadian Preamble in this
instance is very unique. The objectives established, such as advancing the welfare of the
provinces and the interests of the British Empire, show the power of the British Parliament.

PARTICULARS OF ADOPTION:
The only one of the three preambles that specifically mentions the Constitution's adoption date is
the Indian Preamble. The American and Canadian Preambles, the other two preambles, are mute
on this topic.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS
IS THE PREAMBLE A COMPONENT OF THE CONSTITUTION?
This subject has never been brought up in the United States or Canada. Therefore, it is a widely
held belief that the Preamble, which serves as an introduction to the Constitution, is regarded as a
component of the Constitution. After the Keshavanand Bharati judgment, the situation is now
resolved in India. However, there was a discussion over the post before that.

IS THE PREAMBLE AN INTERPRETATIONAL AID TO THE CONSTITUTION?

The Preamble is used to interpret the Constitution in India because of its great interpretational
importance. It is seen as embodying the spirit of the constitution and contains several of what are

30 | P a g e
considered to be its fundamental building blocks. As a result, the Preamble has frequently been
used by the courts to interpret numerous Constitutional sections. Because of the relatively
restricted scope of the American Preamble, courts have never utilized it as a deciding factor in
any case. The Canadian Preamble is no different in this regard. The preamble has not been used
by the courts in any judicial interpretation.

RULE OF LAW:

The phrase "rule of law" is only directly referred to in the Canadian Preamble (The Constitution
Act, 1982). The ideas of natural justice or the rule of law are not mentioned in either the Indian
or American Preambles. However, by looking at the state's purposes, the same may be
determined. Although there is no explicit statement, the idea may be followed through the letter's
spirit.

SUPREMACY OF GOD:

Once more, the Canadian Preamble contains the phrase "supremacy of God." The phrase has
frequently been a source of controversy, even in Canada. The Indian Preamble expressly
acknowledges India as a sovereign and secular state, while the American Preamble is completely
mute in this regard.

The above comparison has been made based on knowledge of the three Preambles' contents.

31 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
The Constitution is the country's ultimate law. In today's globe, the majority of democracies have
written constitutions. A constitution is significant enough that any measure that violates one of
its clauses will be invalidated. The Preamble can be resorted to comprehend the fundamental
structure of the Constitution and the State because the Constitution is frequently a lengthy text
(For example, the Indian Constitution). Thus, studying the prologue is essential to understanding
constitutional law, as several academics, researchers, and philosophers have stressed.

A Preamble has no set structure, and the framers of the Constitution are solely responsible for it.
However, there are certain similar components and recurring themes that are typically repeated
in all of the preambles. These relate to the authority or source from which the government
receives its powers, the character of the state, the goals the state aspires to, and the specifics of
the adoption. If the Preamble has all of these components, every reference to it will be able to
fulfill the aim of explaining the State and the State's Constitutional legislation.

Three significant Preambles—the Indian, American, and Canadian—were researched and

examined with this in mind. An outline of each feature has been drawn up based on the
knowledge that has been acquired.

The study of comparative public law is essential for two main reasons:

1. We are aware of the flaws in our system, and

2. We may look at other systems to learn how they handled similar problems and attempt to
adopt their solutions into our system.

Studying diverse Constitutions can provide a better grasp of how various States operate because
constitutional law is the foundation of public law. As previously said, comparing the
Constitution clause by clause can be a laborious and time-consuming process. A comparison of
the Preambles can be used as a remedy for this.

32 | P a g e
This endeavor involved comparing the Preambles of the Indian, American, and Canadian
Constitutions. Even if nature might seem to be similar on the surface, the study demonstrated
how distinct the three states are from one another.

The four factors stated above were compared in large part. The main reasons for the variances
are the occasions and circumstances surrounding the Constitution's adoption. For instance, the
British Parliament passed the Canadian Constitution, making the advancement of the British
Empire interests one of the goals specified in the preamble. The word "sovereign" is specifically
mentioned in the character of the State since the Indian Constitution was enacted soon after India
gained independence. When an analysis is done, the historical context and the meaning of the
phrases employed are also followed, which provides a deeper grasp of that State's public system.

In conclusion, it can be said that the comparative study of the Preambles has great academic
value since it makes it simple to comprehend the state's origins, goals, aspirations, and source of
power as well as what it intends to provide for its population. The Indian Preamble is a skilfully
created part of the constitutional framework, it may be inferred from the comparison of the three
Preambles. Despite being relatively recent, the Indian Constitution more clearly and formally
conveys the desires of the people. The only one of the three with a strong interpretive
significance is the Indian preamble. These three Preambles can serve as models for newly
emerging democracies that are considering writing written constitutions but have not yet done so.

33 | P a g e