Explain the role of 'Preamble' as internal aid in interpretation of statute. Though the preamble cannot be used to defect the enacting clause of a statute, it has been treated to be a key for the interpretation of the st

The true place of a preamble in a statute was at one time, the subject of conflicting decisions. In Mills v. Wilkins, (1794) 6 Mad. 62, Lord Hold said: "the preamble of a statute is not part thereof, but contains generally the motives or inducement thereof". On the other hand, it was said that "the preamble is to be considered, for it is the key to open the meaning of the makers of the Act, and the mischief it was intended to remedy". The modern rule lies between these two extremes and is that where the enacting part is explicit and unambiguous the preamble cannot be resorted to, control, qualify or restrict it, but where the enacting part is ambiguous, the preamble can be referred to explain and elucidate it [Raj Malv. Harnam Singh, (1928) 9 Lah. 260]. In Powell v. Kempton Park Race Course Co., (1899) AC 143, 157, Lord Halsbury said: "Two propositions are quite clear - One that a preamble may afford useful light as to what a statute intends to reach and another that, if an enactment is itself clear and unambiguous, no preamble can qualify or cut down the enactment". Allahabad High Court has held in Kashi Prasadv. State, AIR 1967 All. 173, that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting clauses of a statute, it has been treated to be a key for the interpretation of the statute. Supreme Court in Kamalpura Kochunniv. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080, pointed out that the preamble may be legitimately consulted in case any ambiguity arises in the construction of an Act and it may be useful to fix the meaning of words used so as to keep the effect of the statute within its real scope.