Correct Option
The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), reversed its earlier stance from the Berubari Union case (1960) and held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution. However, the Preamble is not directly enforceable in a court of law, meaning it cannot independently grant rights or impose obligations. Its legal effect is primarily to serve as a key to interpret the provisions of the Constitution when the language is ambiguous. Therefore, while it is a part of the Constitution, its legal effect is not independent of other parts but rather aids in their understanding and interpretation.
Incorrect Options
Option (a): A part of the Constitution but has no legal effect
This statement is partially correct in identifying the Preamble as a part of the Constitution, but incorrect in stating it has no legal effect. The Preamble holds significant legal value as a guiding principle for interpreting the Constitution, even if it is not directly enforceable.
Option (b): Not a part of the Constitution and has no legal effect either
This option is incorrect. The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), unequivocally declared the Preamble to be a part of the Constitution. Consequently, it also possesses legal significance as an aid to constitutional interpretation.
Option (c): A part of the Constitution and has the same legal effect as any other part
This option is incorrect. While the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, it does not possess the same legal effect as other provisions, such as Fundamental Rights or Directive Principles of State Policy, which are directly enforceable or provide specific directives. The Preamble is non-justiciable and serves an interpretive function rather than an independent legal effect.