SSC GD Constable GK Questions 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The correct answer is United States of America. The idea of beginning a constitution with a preamble was borrowed from the Constitution of the USA, whose own text opens with the words "We the People". The content of India's Preamble, however, comes from Jawaharlal Nehru's Objectives Resolution, moved in the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946 and adopted on 22 January 1947.

The other countries are sources of different parts of the Preamble or of the Constitution. The USSR is the source of the ideal of social, economic and political justice. Britain gave parliamentary government, the rule of law and single citizenship. Canada gave the model of a federation with a strong Centre. Be careful to separate two different questions that look alike: the idea of having a preamble came from the USA, while the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity written inside it came from the French Revolution.

The correct answer is Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. These are the exact words the Preamble uses for liberty, and they appear in it just as written here.

Each of the other options changes one word of the real text, which is exactly how this question catches people. The Preamble speaks of fraternity "assuring the dignity of the individual" and the unity and integrity of the Nation, not "human dignity". It promises equality "of status and of opportunity", not of status and employment. And justice in the Preamble is "social, economic and political"; the word "administrative" does not appear. When an option looks almost right, compare it word for word with the text: justice (social, economic, political), liberty (thought, expression, belief, faith, worship), equality (status, opportunity) and fraternity (dignity of the individual, unity and integrity of the Nation).

The correct answer is Socialist. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 added three words to the Preamble: "Socialist" and "Secular" to the description of India, and "Integrity" to the phrase "unity and integrity of the Nation". It is the only amendment ever made to the Preamble.

Democratic, Republic and Sovereign were all in the Preamble from the start: as adopted on 26 November 1949, it described India as a "sovereign democratic republic". That is why they are wrong here. Questions on this amendment come in several forms: which word was added, which word was not added, or how many words were added. Keep all three in mind together: Socialist, Secular and Integrity, added in 1976. A related fact worth linking is the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which had held three years earlier that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be amended without changing its basic features.

The correct answer is Sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic. This is the order in which the Preamble describes India: "a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". Socialist and secular were inserted between sovereign and democratic by the 42nd Amendment in 1976; before that the phrase read "sovereign democratic republic".

The first option swaps socialist and secular, which is the most common slip, since both words were added at the same time. The third option repeats "secular" and begins with the wrong word, and the fourth moves "sovereign" from the front to the end. A simple way to hold the order is to say the three S-words by sound: So, So, Se (Sovereign, Socialist, Secular), followed by the original last two words, Democratic Republic. The two words added in 1976 sit together in the middle.

The correct answer is The People of India. The Preamble opens with the words "We, the people of India", which name the people as the source from which the Constitution draws its authority. The Constitution was not handed down by a government, a court or a legislature; the people, through their Constituent Assembly, adopted, enacted and gave it to themselves on 26 November 1949.

The Supreme Court, the Indian Parliament and the Central Government are all created by the Constitution, so none of them can be its source of authority. Each of them exercises only the powers the Constitution gives it. This is the first of the four things the Preamble tells us, the others being the nature of the Indian State (sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic), its objectives (justice, liberty, equality and fraternity) and the date of adoption. A fill-in-the-blank question like this one tests whether you know the exact opening words, so learn the text as written.

The correct answer is 389. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 fixed the total strength of the Constituent Assembly at 389 seats: 296 for British India and 93 for the princely states. Of the 296 British Indian seats, 292 were for the eleven governors' provinces and 4 for the chief commissioners' provinces.

Every other option is a real number from the same chapter, placed to catch a hurried reader. 299 is the strength of the Assembly after Partition, when the members from the areas that went to Pakistan left. 296 is only the share of British India, without the princely states. 395 is not a count of members at all: it is the number of Articles in the Constitution as originally adopted. Questions on this topic often place these numbers side by side, so link each one to what it counts: 389 members at the start, 299 after Partition, 296 seats for British India and 395 original Articles.

The correct answer is M.N. Roy. Manabendra Nath Roy, a pioneer of the communist movement in India, was the first to put forward the idea of a Constituent Assembly, in 1934. The Indian National Congress took up the idea and made it an official demand in 1935, and the British government accepted the demand in principle in the August Offer of 1940. The Assembly itself was finally formed in 1946 under the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Jawaharlal Nehru is the most tempting wrong answer, because he became closely identified with the demand and later moved the Objectives Resolution in the Assembly on 13 December 1946; but the idea was first put forward by Roy. Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose are not credited with first proposing it. When a question uses the words "first" or "originally", it is usually testing exactly this: the difference between who proposed an idea and who carried it forward.

The correct answer is Germany. The provision for suspending Fundamental Rights during an Emergency was taken from the Weimar Constitution of Germany. It is the only feature of the Indian Constitution usually traced to that source.

The other options are sources of different features. France gave the idea of a republic and the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble. Russia, as the former USSR, gave the Fundamental Duties and the ideal of social, economic and political justice. Australia gave the Concurrent List, freedom of trade and commerce, and the joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament. The emergency provisions as a whole are drawn largely from the Government of India Act, 1935, so a question on "emergency provisions" in general points there, while one on "suspension of Fundamental Rights during an Emergency" points to Germany. Read the wording carefully before choosing.

The correct answer is Ireland. The Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution were modelled on the Irish Constitution. India also took two other features from Ireland: the nomination of members to the Rajya Sabha and the method of electing the President.

The other countries gave different features. The USSR is the source of the Fundamental Duties and of the ideal of social, economic and political justice in the Preamble. The United States gave the Fundamental Rights, judicial review, the independence of the judiciary and the impeachment of the President. China is not counted among the sources of the Indian Constitution at all. The pair most often confused is Rights and Principles: Fundamental Rights come from the USA, while the Directive Principles come from Ireland. A simple memory hook is "Rights from America, Directions from Ireland".

The correct answer is 2 years, 11 months and 18 days. The Assembly first met on 9 December 1946 and completed its work when the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949. In that time it held 11 sessions spread over 165 days, of which 114 days were spent considering the Draft Constitution. The total cost came to about ₹64 lakh.

The other options are built to look close. 1 year, 11 months and 18 days copies the months and days but drops a whole year. 3 years, 2 months and 10 days would carry the work past January 1950, when the Constitution had already come into force. 2 years, 6 months and 20 days is simply too short. A quick check that works in the exam hall: from December 1946 to late November 1949 is just under three years, which leaves only the first option standing.

The correct answer is 26 November 1949. On that day the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution, and the date is now observed every year as Constitution Day. Some provisions, such as those on citizenship, elections, the provisional Parliament and temporary and transitional matters, took effect on 26 November 1949 itself.

26 January 1950 is the trap in this question: it is the date the Constitution came into force, now celebrated as Republic Day, not the date it was adopted. The day was chosen because the Congress had observed 26 January as Purna Swaraj Day in 1930. The other two options, 26 November 1950 and 26 January 1949, simply swap the years and match no event in the making of the Constitution. When you revise, keep the pair together in the right order: adopted on 26 November 1949, in force from 26 January 1950.

The correct answer is B.N. Rau. Sir Benegal Narsing Rau was appointed the constitutional (legal) adviser to the Constituent Assembly. He studied the constitutions of other countries and prepared the initial draft of the Constitution, which the Drafting Committee then worked on before publishing its own draft in February 1948.

B.R. Ambedkar is the most likely wrong pick: he chaired the Drafting Committee and steered the Constitution through the Assembly, but he was not the Assembly's adviser. H.V.R. Iyengar served as the Secretary of the Constituent Assembly, an administrative office, and S.N. Mukherjee was its chief draftsman. The distinction the question tests is between the adviser who prepared the first draft (Rau) and the committee chairman who guided the final text (Ambedkar). Questions sometimes use the words "legal adviser" and sometimes "constitutional adviser"; both point to B.N. Rau.

The correct answer is B.R. Ambedkar. The Drafting Committee was set up on 29 August 1947 with seven members, and Dr B.R. Ambedkar was its chairman. The committee published the Draft Constitution in February 1948, and Ambedkar piloted it through the Assembly's clause-by-clause debate, which is why he is remembered as the chief architect of the Constitution.

K.M. Munshi and Mohammad Saadullah were members of the same committee, not its chairman, which makes them the most tempting wrong answers. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was not on the Drafting Committee; he chaired the Provincial Constitution Committee and the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas. Learn the full list of seven members too, because a common variant asks which name was not a member: Ambedkar, N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, K.M. Munshi, Syed Mohammad Saadullah, N. Madhava Rau and T.T. Krishnamachari.

The correct answer is Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946, and the Assembly adopted it on 22 January 1947. The resolution set out what the Constitution was meant to achieve: an independent, sovereign republic in which all people would have justice, equality and freedom, with safeguards for minorities and backward classes. Those ideas were later shaped into the Preamble.

Dr Rajendra Prasad was the President of the Assembly and presided over its debates; he did not move this resolution. J.B. Kripalani chaired the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee. Dr B.R. Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee, which was set up only on 29 August 1947, months after the resolution had been adopted. A tidy way to remember the order: Nehru stated the objectives first, and Ambedkar's committee turned them into a draft later.