Constitution and the concept is hardly suitable for encasement in a coercive legal formula. The Preamble, generally, uses words of “Passion and power” in order to move the hearts of men and to stir them into action.* Its own meaning and implication being in doubt, the Preamble cannot affect or throw light on the meaning of the enacting words of the Constitution.** Therefore, though our Preamble was voted upon and is a part of the Constitution, it is really “a preliminary statement of the reasons” which made the passing of the Constitution necessary and desirable.† As observed by Gajendragadkar, J. in In re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, (1960) 3 SCR 250, 282 = (AIR 1960 SC 845 at p. 856) what Willoughby has said about the Preamble to the American Constitution, namely, that it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power, is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations. The Preamble of our Constitution cannot therefore be regarded as a source of any prohibitions or limitations. 667. Judicial review, according to Shri Shanti Bhushan is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and since the 39th Amendment, by Article 329A (4) and (5) deprives the courts, including the Supreme Court, of their power to adjudicate upon the disputed election, the Amendment is unconstitutional. The fundamental premise of this argument is too broadly stated because the Constitution, as originally enacted, expressly excluded judicial review in a large variety of important matters. Articles 31 (4), 31 (6), 136 (2), 227 (4), 262 (2) and 329 (a) are some of the instances in point. True, that each of these provisions has a purpose behind it but these provisions show that the Constitution did not regard judicial review as an indispensable measure of the legality or propriety of every determination. Article 136(2) expressly took away the power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the decisions of any court or Tribunal constituted by a law relating to the Armed forces. Article 262 (2) authorized the Parliament to make a law providing that the Supreme Court or any other court shall have no jurisdiction over certain river disputes. But what is even more to the point are the provisions contained in Articles 103 (1) and 329 (b). Article 102 preseribes disqualifications for membership of the Parliament. By Article 103(1), any question arising under Article 102 has to whether a member of the Parliament has become subject to any disqualification has to be referred to the President whose decision is final. The President is required by Article 103 (2) to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and act according to its opinion. Thus, in a vital matter pertaining to the election for membership of the Parliament, the framers of the Constitution had left the decision to the judgment of the executive. Articles 327 and 328 give power to the Parliament and the State legislatures to provide by law for all maters relating to elections to the respective legislatures, including the preparation of electoral rolls and the delimitation of constituencies. By Article 329 (a) the vilidity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any court. 668. The Provision contained in Article 329 (b) is decisive on the question under consideration. That article provides that no election to the parliament