Regarding the legal status of the Preamble, which statement is correct based on Supreme Court judgments?
- The Preamble is not part of the Constitution and has no legal force
- The Preamble is part of the Constitution, has interpretive value for resolving ambiguities, but is not directly enforceable like Fundamental Rights
- The Preamble overrides all other constitutional provisions in case of conflict
- The Preamble can be amended by simple majority in Parliament
Answer: The Preamble is part of the Constitution, has interpretive value for resolving ambiguities, but is not directly enforceable like Fundamental Rights
Preamble's legal status: (a) Berubari Union case (1960): Held Preamble not part of Constitution, merely introductory statement with no legal force, (b) Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): Overruled Berubari; held Preamble is part of Constitution, amendable under Article 368 but basic structure unamendable, (c) Current position: (i) Preamble is part of Constitution, (ii) Has interpretive value: Courts use Preamble to resolve ambiguities in statutes, constitutional provisions, (iii) Not directly enforceable: Citizens cannot petition courts based solely on Preamble violations; must invoke specific provisions (Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles), (d) Applications: (i) Puttaswamy: Preamble dignity guided privacy recognition under Article 21, (ii) SR Bommai: Preamble secularism guided federalism interpretation under Article 356, (e) Illustrates constitutional interpretation: Preamble as normative compass guiding interpretation, limiting amendments, inspiring transformative governance while being part of Constitution but not standalone enforceable provision.