INTRODUCTION

The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains three subject lists- Union list

for the centre, State list for the states and the Concurrent list for both, the centre as well
as the states. The lists lay down the subjects each legislature is competent to legislate
on. This well-defined scheme for division of powers is to ensure that no legislature
trespasses while exercising its powers and the sanctity of the Constitutional scheme for
the division of powers is preserved.

What is Interpretation?
The term interpretation means “To give meaning to”. Governmental power has been
divided into three wings namely the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Interpretation of statues to render justice is the primary function of the judiciary. It is the
duty of the Court to interpret the Act and give meaning to each word of the Statute.
The most common rule of interpretation is that every part of the statute must be
understood in a harmonious manner by reading and construing every part of it together.
The maxim “A Verbis legis non est recedendum” means that you must not vary the
words of the statute while interpreting it.

The object of interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature

conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used.

1
PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

A written constitution is basically a form of statute and many of the principles of the
ordinary principles of interpretation. The enactment of the Indian Constitution was an
ambitious political experiment whereas the Supreme Court while interpreting the
provisions enshrined primarily focused on the plain meaning of the words. It is important
for the Constitution has to be interpreted in a liberal and broad manner such that any
law does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The constitution of India
came into force 70 years ago and there have been different phases of constitutional
interpretation in these seven decades where the Apex Court decided to take a step
back from the political connotations.

The first phase where it was interpreted literally; the second phase where the Courts
began to scrutinize all possible methods of interpretation as a result of which the basic
structure doctrine came into existence; the third phase can be described as phase of
eclecticism where the decisions by the Apex Court were based on fairness; the fourth
phase is the current one where the court has begun to interpret the provision in a
transformative manner. This article will discuss different approaches adopted by the
Court while interpreting the Constitution of India. The approaches are: Doctrinal,
Textualist and Purposive.

At the heart of every constitutional decision is the courts assessment of what the
constitution means, why it exists in the shape and form that it does, and, above all, what
injustices it is meant to remedy. There are a number of principles used by the courts
while interpreting the constitution which will be discussed further in this article. The
constitution of India as the preamble suggest is the constitution which the people have
given to themselves who is the beneficiary of its provisions and as described by
Churchill as: little man with a little pencil with a little ballot to vote should never be
neglected. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to apply its mind in the interpreting any
provision in question which affects the individual dignity in any manner. The
interpretation by the Judges in an innovative manner has to be continued keeping in
mind the historical growth of the India’s constitution.

The following principles have frequently been discussed by the courts while interpreting
the Constitution:

1. Principle of colourable legislation

2. Principle of pith and substance

3. Principle of eclipse

4. Principle of Severability

5. Principle of territorial nexus

6. Principle of implied powers

Principle of Colourable Legislation

The doctrine of colourability is the idea that when the legislature wants to do something
that it cannot do within the constraints of the constitution, it colours the law with a
substitute purpose which will still allow it to accomplish its original goal.

Maxim: “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliqum” which

means what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly.

The rule relates to the question of legislative competence to enact a law. Colourable

Legislation does not involve the question of bonafides or malfides. A legislative

transgression may be patent, manifest or direct or may be disguised, covert or indirect.

It is also applied to the fraud of Constitution.

In India ‘the doctrine of colourable legislation’ signifies only a limitation of the law
making power of the legislature. It comes into picture while the legislature purporting to
act within its power but in reality, it has transgressed those powers. So the doctrine
becomes applicable whenever legislation seeks to do in an indirect manner what it
cannot do directly. If the impugned legislation falls within the competence of legislature,
the question of doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly does not arise.
In our Constitution, this doctrine is usually applied to Article 246 which has demarcated

the Legislative competence of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies by

outlining the different subjects under list I for the Union, List II for the States and List III
for the both as mentioned in the seventh schedule.

This doctrine comes into play when a legislature does not possess the power to make
law upon a particular subject but nonetheless indirectly makes one. By applying this
principle the fate of the Impugned Legislation is decided.

Principle of pith and substance

Pith means ‘true nature’ or essence of something’ and substance means ‘the most
important or essential part of something’. The basic purpose of this doctrine is to
determine under which head of power or field i.e. under which list (given in the seventh
schedule) a given piece of legislation falls. Union & State Legislatures are supreme
within their respective fields. They should not encroach/ trespass into the field reserved
to the other. If a law passed by one trespass upon the field assigned to the other—the
Court by applying Pith & Substance doctrine, resolve the difficulty &declare whether the
legislature concerned was competent to make the law. If the pith & substance of the law
(i.e. the true object of the legislation) relates to a matter within the competence of the
legislature which enacted it, it should be held intra vires—though the legislature might
incidentally trespass into matters, not within its competence. The true character of the
legislation can be ascertained by having regard—to the enactment as a whole — to its
object – to the scope and effect of its provisions.

Case: State of Bombay v. FN Balsara

Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 which prohibited sale & possession of liquors in the
State, was challenged on the ground that it incidentally encroached upon Imports &
Exports of liquors across custom frontier – a Central subject. It was contended that the
prohibition, purchase, use, possession, and sale of liquor will affect its import. The court
held that act valid because the pith & substance fell under Entry 8 of State List and not
under Entry 41 of Union List.

Principle of eclipse
The Doctrine of Eclipse says that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not
invalid. It is not dead totally but overshadowed by the fundamental right. The
inconsistency (conflict) can be removed by a constitutional amendment to the relevant
fundamental right so that eclipse vanishes and the entire law becomes valid. All laws in
force in India before the commencement of the Constitution shall be void in so far they
are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. Any law existing before the
commencement of the Constitution and inconsistent with the provision of Constitution
becomes inoperative on commencement of Constitution. But the law does not become
dead. The law remains a valid law in order to determine any question of law incurred
before the commencement of the Constitution. An existing law only becomes eclipsed to
the extent it comes under the shadow of the FR.

Case: Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay

In this case, the law in question was an existing law at the time when the
Constitution came into force. That existing law imposed on the exercise of the right
guaranteed to the citizens of India by article 19(1)(g) restrictions which could not be
justified as reasonable under clause (6) as it then stood and consequently under
article 13(1)[8] that existing law became void “to the extent of such inconsistency”.
The court said that the law became void not in to or for all purposes or for all times or for
all persons but only “to the extent of such inconsistency”, that is to say, to the extent
it became inconsistent with the provisions of Part III which conferred the
fundamental rights of the citizens. Thus the Doctrine of Eclipse provides for the
validation of Pre-Constitution Laws that violate fundamental rights upon the premise that
such laws are not null and void ab initio but become unenforceable only to the extent of
such inconsistency with the fundamental rights. If any subsequent amendment to the
Constitution removes the inconsistency or the conflict of the existing law with the
fundamental rights, then the Eclipse vanishes and that particular law again becomes
active again.

Principle of Severability
The doctrine of severability provides that if an enactment cannot be saved by
construing it consistent with its constitutionality, it may be seen whether it can be partly
saved. Article 13 of the Constitution of India provides for Doctrine of severability which
states that All laws in force in India before the commencement of Constitution shall be
void in so far they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

The State shall not make any law which takes away/ shortens the rights conferred by
Part III of the Constitution i.e. Fundamental Rights. Any law made in contravention of
the provisions of the Constitution shall be void and invalid. The invalid part shall be
severed and declared invalid if it is really severable. (That is, if the part which is not
severed can meaningfully exist without the severed part.) Sometimes the valid and
invalid parts of the Act are so mixed up that they cannot be separated from each other.
In such cases, the entire Act will be invalid.

Case: AK Gopalan v. State of Madras

In this case, the Supreme Court said that in case of repugnancy to the Constitution,
only the repugnant provision of the impugned Act will be void and not the whole of it,
and every attempt should be made to save as much as possible of the Act. If the
omission of the invalid part will not change the nature or the structure of the object of
the legislature, it is severable. It was held that except Section 14 all other sections of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 were valid, and since Section 14 could be severed from
the rest of the Act, the detention of the petitioner was not illegal

Principle of Territorial Nexus

Article 245 (2) of the Constitution of India makes it amply clear that ‘No law made by
Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-
territorial operation’. Thus a legislation cannot be questioned on the ground that it has
extra-territorial operation. It is well-established that the Courts of our country must
enforce the law with the machinery available to them, and they are not entitled to
question the authority of the Legislature in making a law which is extra-territorial. The
extra-territorial operation does not invalidate a law. But some nexus with India may still
be necessary in some of the cases such as those involving taxation statutes.

The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus can be invoked under the following circumstances-

▪ Whether a particular state has extra-territorial operation.

▪ If there is a territorial nexus between the subject- matter of the Act and the state
making the law

It signifies that the object to which the law applies need not be physically located within
the territorial boundaries of the state but must have a sufficient territorial connection with
the state.

A state may levy a tax on a person, property, object or transaction not only when it is
situated within its territorial limits, but also when it has a sufficient and real territorial
connection with it. Nexus test was applied to the state legislation also.

Case: Tata Iron & Steel Company v. Bihar State

The State of Bihar passed a Sales Tax Act for levy of sales tax whether the sale was
concluded within the state or outside if the goods were produced, found and
manufactured in the state. The court held there was sufficient territorial nexus and
upheld the Act as valid. Whether there is sufficient nexus between the law and the
object sought to be taxed will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular
case.

It was pointed out that sufficiency of the territorial connection involved a consideration of
two elements- a) the connection must be real and not illusory b) the liability sought to be
imposed must be pertinent to that connection.

Principle of Implied powers

Laws which are necessary and proper for the execution of the power or incidental to
such power are called implied powers and these laws are presumed to be constitutional.
In other words, constitutional powers are granted in general terms out of which implied
powers must necessarily arise. Likewise, constitutional restraints are put in general
terms out of which implied restraints must also necessarily establish. This is a Legal
principle which states that, in general, the rights and duties of a legislative body or
organization are determined from its functions and purposes as specified in its
constitution or charter and developed in practice

INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Interpretation, sometimes referred to as Judicial Interpretation, is the

name given to the different viewpoints on the Constitution when it is applied to court
cases and legislation.

There a numerous types of constitutional interpretation but the main ones are briefly
outlined below.

Strict Constructionism
An interpretation that can be described as Strict Constructionism is one whereby
justices would look at the precise wording on the Constitution in order to gather a
meaning. Upon gathering a successful and clear meaning this must be applied to cases.
There would be no need to read further into the matter or to infer details that are not
explicitly stated. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the interpretation of the
First Amendment by Associate Justice Hugo Black.

Blackfollowed this approach that Congress shall make no law, therefore if Congress
made a law which even looked as if it infringed upon the First Amendment, it should be
struck down, with no further discussion.
Loose Constructionism
On the other side of the Constructionism coin is loose constructionism. This is in
contrast to strict constructionism and believes that when interpreting the Constitution,
justices should look wider than just the text of the Constitution and allow the
Constitution to fit with the modern era. The basis of this argument is built upon the
premise that the Founding Fathers could not envisage how modern society has
developed, therefore the Constitution must be interpreted according to modern
standards.

Originalism
Originalism is the approach taken to constitution interpretation whereby justices will
seek to apply original meaning in the Constitution. This approach is criticised for the
huge variety in historical interpretation that will come with this approach.

Founders Intent
In a similar vein to Originalism, the doctrine of Founders Intent states that justices,
when applying constitutional interpretation will seek to apply the intentions of the
Founders. This will of course vary depending on which Founder each justice were to
choose. It suffers from the same criticism that Originalism does, in that the degrees of
historical interpretation will vary.

Process

 The process of constitutional interpretation differs from that used to interpret

other statutes.
 It is defined as the process of developing a collection of rules and regulations
that citizens are expected to follow.
 The function of judicial review is a part of the constitutional interpretation itself. It
adjusts the Constitution to meet new conditions and needs of the time
  The Supreme Court of India's interpretations can be broken down into three
stages.
1. The first phase entails "grammatical/literal interpretation," often known as
textualism.
2. Reading each phrase and comparing it to the Constitution is what this means.
3. The "eclectic or conceptual approach" in the second phase focuses not only on
the language of the Constitution, but also on the concepts and themes that it
incorporates in a broader sense.
4. These two phases are the result of the third phase, which is referred to as
"careful thinking."
5. It presents reasons in the third phase by sitting on two or three Judge benches.
6. Finally, the Court makes decisions based on its own preconceptions, which leads
to the adoption of a variety of internal interpretive methodologies and frequently
ends in incoherent constitutional law.

DOCTRINES IN INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION

The Supreme Court applies various doctrines in interpreting the constitution. The
approaches are: Doctrinal, Textualist and Purposive.

Doctrinal Approach

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation:

The doctrine of colourable legislation basically in common parlance refers to the
question of competency of the legislature while enacting the provisions of law. It
basically suggest the practice carried out by the legislature whereby it enacts a
provision which at the face cannot be authorized by the constitution by the coloring the
provisions with a substitute purpose which indirectly allows the original intention.
 This doctrine is based upon the legal maxim Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo,
prohibetur et per obliqum which means that what cannot be done directly, cannot be
done indirectly. In a nutshell the purpose of this doctrine is to check that the legislature
while framing the laws does not transgress the provisions enshrined under the
Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of K.C. Gajapati v. State of Odisha,
explained the doctrine and held that: if the constitution of a State distributes the
legislative spheres marked out by specific legislative entries or if there are limitations on
the legislative authority in the shape of fundamental rights, questions do arise as to
whether the legislature in a particular case in respect to the subject matter of the statute
or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of the constitutional power or not.
Such transgression mat be patent, manifest and direct, but may also be distinguished,
covered and indirect and it is the latter class of cases that the expression colourable
legislation has been applied in certain judicial pronouncements.

In our Constitution, this doctrine is usually applied to Article 246 which separates the
legislative competencies of the Parliament and the State legislative assemblies by
stating the different subject under the different lists under Schedule VII upon which the
respective legislature can draft the laws. This doctrine comes into the fore when the
legislature drafts a law which it is not competent to draft and the fate of the same law is
decided by the courts using the doctrine of colourable legislation.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

This doctrine highlights or focuses upon to understand the true nature and characteristic
of law. The doctrine signifies that it is the real subject matter which is to be challenged
and not its incidental effects on another field. The application of this doctrine can be
illustrated through Article 246 which enumerates the legislative competency mentioned
in the lists under the Seventh Schedule. It is pertinent to the fact that the legislature will
make laws on the subject matter enshrined under the lists, but there might be incidental
trespass by the legislature which ultimately result in the declaration of that specific law
as ultra vires. The rationale behind this doctrine that the Central and State Legislature at
any point of time trespass the field protected for each other.

The Supreme Court for the first time applied this doctrine and upheld the same in State
of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara. In brief the facts of the case being that the State of
Maharashtra restricted the sale and possession of liquor by the provisions of the
Bombay Prohibition Act and the same was challenged with the rationale that it was an
interference on the act of importing and exporting of the liquor through the borders. The
apex court held that the impugned legislation was in pith and substance a State subject
even though it incidentally encroached the subject enumerated in List I.

The rationale and the spirit behind being that every law will be declared invalid by citing
the reason of it being in conflict with the subject matter mentioned in another list.

Doctrine of Eclipse
The doctrine of eclipse suggests that when any law made by the Legislature is
derogatory with Part III of the Constitution of India, then that law will be treated as
invalid and inoperative to the extent to which the provisions are inconsistent to the
Fundamental Rights. Article 13(1) emphasizes the fact that the State shall not make any
law which will be inconsistent with the fundamental rights and any such law made will
be void.

The Apex court in the case of the Keshava Menon v. State of Bombay, the facts of the
case being that the petitioner was prosecuted under the Indian Press (Emergency
Powers) Act, 1931 for publishing a pamphlet without seeking prior permission. The
Court held that the provisions mentioned under the Indian Press Act are violative of
Article 19(1) (a) and are void to the extent there lies inconsistency.

In I.C.Golaknath v. State of Punjab, it was held that the Parliament had no power to
dissect or break the fundamental rights and further the court negated with the
absoluteness of Article 368 and concluded that the amending powers under Article 368
are restrictive in nature and therefore Article 368 was eclipsed. However, the
I.C.Golaknath was overruled by the Apex Court after the judgement pronounced in the
famous case of Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela.

Doctrine of Severability
This particular means where a particular provision is not in parlance with the
fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the constitution and when such provision
which is not consistent can be separated and will be declared void by the Court as a
result of which the rest provision remains consistent with the relevant provisions.

While applying this doctrine, the court does not declare the whole statute or act as void
but only the provision or any part violative of the Part III of constitution and which can be
separated from the rest of the provision.

The doctrine was applied by the Apex Court in the case of A.K.Gopalan v. State of
Madras, where it was held that Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was
inconsistent with Article 22 of the Constitution only to the part which prohibited the
person detained to make representation or even disclose the grounds to the court was
ultra vires.
Thus, only the repugnant part of the impugned act will be declared void and not the
whole Act. 

Textual Approach

Textualism is also called literal interpretation. The general rule of interpretation of

statute is that the Court while interpreting the statute or any part of it would use literal
rule of interpretation. Literal rule means adherence to the words mentioned in the act.
Under this approach the court focuses on the literal meaning of the constitutional
provisions. According to this rule, the words, pharases and sentences of a statute are
ordinarily to be understood in their in their literal and grammatical meaning.
In A.K.Gopalan: the Supreme Court gave a narrow and literal interpretation to Article 21
of the Constitution and refused to infuse the concept of procedure established by law
with the principles of natural justice. Another area where the Supreme Court had used
the textualist interpretation was in the interpretation of the word law under Article 13(2)
vis-a-vis the Parliaments power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

The Constitution was indeed silent on whether this word under Article 13(2) includes a
constitutional amendment or not. In 1951, the Supreme Court made a distinction
between ordinary legislative power and the Constituent power of the Parliament. It was
held that Article 368 empowered the Parliament to amend the constitution without
anyexception. However this judgement was overruled by 11 judge bench and held that
the power under Article 368 could not abridge or take away the fundamental rights in
Part III of the Constitution.

Purposive Interpretation

Purposive Interpretation as the name suggests means that the court while interpreting
the statute or the constitution looks into the purpose for which the the provision or the
statute in question was enacted. Thus, the court will delve into the purpose of the
enactment in order to derive the correct interpretation such that it result in delivery of
justice.

The Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India held:
Constitutional provisions are required to be understood and interpreted with an object-
oriented approach and a Constitution must not be construed in a narrow and pedantic
sense. The judiciary must interpret the Constitution having regard to the spirit and
further by adopting a method of purposive interpretation.

The courts take the aid of the committee reports, constituent assembly debates, early
drafts or any materials from the pre-enactment phase.
 It is for us not to forget the dissenting judgement by Justice Vivian Bose in the case of
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, where he stated that the provisions of the
Constitution are not mathematical formulae which have their essence in mere form.
They constitute a framework of Government written for men of fundamentally differing
opinions and written as much for the future as the present... they are not just dull lifeless
words static hidebound as in some mummified manuscript, but living flames intended to
give life to great nation and order its being, tongues of dynamic fire potent to mould the
future as well as guide the present

Provisions Involved

The following provisions of the Constitution indicate the role assigned by the
Constitution to the Supreme Court, for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution itself:

 According to Article 132 of the Constitution – “an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court
from any Judgement decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India,
whether a Civil, Criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under article
134-A that the case involves a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the
Constitution”.

 According to Article 141 “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
Courts within the territory of India. Under the Constitution, an individual has access to
the Supreme Court for interpretation of the Constitution, and the interpretation given by
the Supreme Court is binding on all”.

PHASES OF CONSTITUTION INTERPRETATION

Text as phase one
In its early years, the Supreme Court adopted a textualist approach, focusing on the
plain meaning of the words used in the Constitution. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
(1950) was one of the early decisions in which the Court was called upon to interpret
the fundamental rights under Part III. The leader of the Communist Party of India
claimed that preventive detention legislation under which he was detained was

inconsistent with Articles 19 (the right to freedom), 21 (the right to life) and 22 (the
protection against arbitrary arrest and detention). The Supreme Court decided that each
of those articles covered entirely different subject matter, and were to be read as
separate codes rather than being read together.
Amongst the most controversial questions in Indian constitutional law has been
whether there are any limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution,
especially fundamental rights. In its early years, the Court read the Constitution literally,
concluding that there were no such limitations.

Phase two, the structure

In the second phase, the Supreme Court began exploring other methods of
interpretation. Appeals to the text of the Constitution were gradually overtaken by
appeals to the Constitution’s overall structure and coherence. In the leading case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court concluded that Parliament’s
power to amend the Constitution did not extend to altering its “basic structure” — an
open-ended catalogue of features that lies within the exclusive control of the Court.
When Parliament attempted to overturn this decision by amending the Constitution yet
again, the Court, relying on structuralist justifications, decisively rejected that attempt.

In this phase, the Court also categorically rejected the Gopalan approach in favour of a
structuralist one in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Through this decision,
the Court conceived of the fundamental rights as a cohesive bill of rights rather than a
miscellaneous grouping of constitutional guarantees. The right to life was incrementally
interpreted to include a wide range of rights such as clean air, speedy trial, and free
legal aid. This paved the way for the Supreme Court to play an unprecedented role in
the governance of the nation.

What was common between the first two phases of the interpretive story was that
significant decisions involving the interpretation of the Constitution were entrusted to
Constitution Benches (comprising five or more judges of court) and were carefully (even
if incorrectly) reasoned. There was limited scope for precedential confusion, since
matters which had been decided by Constitution Benches and which demanded
reconsideration were referred to larger Constitution Benches.

Eclecticism as phase three

In the third phase, the Supreme Court’s interpretive philosophy turned far more result-
oriented than it had ever been. The Court often surrendered its responsibility of
engaging in a thorough rights reasoning of the issues before it. Two factors underpinned
this institutional failure. First, the changing structure of the Court, which at its inception
began with eight judges, grew to a sanctioned strength of 31; it is currently 34. It began
to sit in panels of two or three judges, effectively transforming it into a “polyvocal” group
of about a dozen sub-Supreme Courts. Second, the Court began deciding cases based
on a certain conception of its own role — whether as sentinel of democracy or protector
of the market economy. This unique decision-making process sidelined reason-giving in
preference to arriving at outcomes that match the Court’s perception.

The failure to give reasons contributed not only to methodological incoherence but also
to serious doctrinal incoherence and inconsistency across the law. This can be best
described as panchayati eclecticism, with different Benches adopting inconsistent
interpretive approaches based on their conception of the Court’s role, and arriving at
conclusions that were often in tension with one another. The imagery that panchayati
eclecticism is meant to invoke is that of a group of wise men and women (applying the
analogy, sub-Supreme Courts), taking decisions based on notions of fairness that are
detached from precedent, doctrine and established interpretive methods.
Phase four, purpose

We are currently in the midst of transitioning from the third phase of constitutional
interpretation to the fourth. In the fourth phase, the Court has acknowledged as critical
to its interpretive exercise the purpose for which the Constitution has been enacted.
Many Constitutions attempt the task of entrenching a political compromise between the
incumbents and challengers of the day. India’s Constitution, at its very inception, was
different. In enacting the Constitution, the founders of our Republic expressed a sense
of unease with the status quo and raised expectations of root-and-branch social
revolution and transformation. The Court is now beginning to interpret the Constitution
in accordance with its revolutionary and transformative potential.

However, facets of phase 3 continue to linger on in the courts. Cases that involve
substantial questions of interpretation of the Constitution such as the cases concerning
the National Register of Citizens and the electoral bonds scheme are still being
adjudicated upon by benches of two or three judges. There remains a latent risk,
therefore, that the gains made in the early days of phase four could be lost, and we
could slide back to panchayati adjudication once again.

IMPORTANCE OF CONSTITUTION INTERPRETATION

Constitutional Interpretation is important for several reasons. Firstly, Constitutions are

broadly worded documents and have been drafted in as general terms as possible. To
apply them to particular legal and factual circumstances, rules of constitutional
interpretation becomes necessary.
Secondly, Constitutions were drafted decades and sometimes centuries earlier. Such a
document may be ill-equipped at times to answer certain specific questions which the
drafters ratifying the document could not have easily foreseen. It, therefore, becomes
important for the courts to propound theories of constitutional interpretation that makes
the document a “living constitution” – one that caters to the society of today and
tomorrow. Constitutions must evolve and adapt to new challenges and circumstances
without being formally amended.
Thirdly, it is difficult to identify the ‘Spirit of the Constitution’ by reading a single
provision in the document. Rules of Constitutional Interpretation helps identify the
overall spirit of the text. Fourthly, Constitutional Interpretation is crucial in identifying
‘Constitutional Symbolism’. A written Constitution is in many senses a symbolic
document and to identify its symbolism is an important legal venture. It helps address
philosophical questions of legal importance which reaffirms constitutional values and
helps build a nation’s own constitutional identity.

Critical Analysis
Constitutional interpretation has an intricate relationship with Constitutional change.
Mostly, interpretations teach us how easy it is to amend a Constitution. Most provisions
of the Constitutions can be amended by two-third majority in Parliament. The structure
and composition of a Court have an important bearing on its interpretive approach. The
aforementioned methods of interpretation are in no manner exhaustive. There are
several other mechanisms and techniques used for interpretation of the Constitution
besides these methods of interpretation. It is explicitly stated in our Constitution that it
can be interpreted at times of need by the Articles 132 and 141. The majority
Judgement in cases of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala and Minerva Mills
Ltd strongly relied upon the preamble in reaching the conclusion that power of
amendment conferred by Article 368 was limited and did not enable parliament to alter
the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
 CONCLUSION

In many of the cases Indian Supreme Court’s approach to Constitutional

interpretation have induced global interpretive trends. There are many Judgements
of the Supreme Court with many more interpretive techniques. Tracking the
developing world interpretations also developed from textualism to various
techniques and approaches. The exponential growth of judgments interpreting the
Constitution has led to increasingly precedent-laden and doctrine heavy decisions,
that sometimes lose sight of the document that is being interpreted.

Though borrowed from principles and ideas from across the world, the given
doctrines were adapted to suit the Indian context. The Indian model of centre-state
relations is neither unitary nor federal. It is a hybrid of both, best described by the
phrase ‘quasi-federal’. This has caused commenters to remark that the Indian
Constitution is ‘federal in structure and unitary in spirit’

Interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts seek to ascertain

the meaning of the legislature through the medium of the authoritative forms in which
it is expressed. The interpretation of the Constitution becomes more important when
there is need to harmonize it with the democratic principles of the State. The Indian
Constitution is the longest constitution and it is evident that Courts have adopted
different principles in interpreting the basic structure, equality, right to privacy etc.

Thus, the courts have never bind themselves with the literal rule of interpretation
only while deciding any matter pertaining to constitutional importance. In the modern
times it is evidently seen that the Judges have started adopting the purposive
method of interpretation in order to understand and implement the intention of the
makers of the constitution. 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Interpretation of statues – S.R. Myneni

2. Black Law Dictionary
3. Interpretation of Statues – DN Mathur
4. Interpretation of Statutes – M.P.Todon
5. Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 https://lawyersgyan.com/blog/blog-interpretation-of-Indianconstitution/
 https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/mischief-rule-statutory-
interpretation/
 https://sociallawstoday.com/golden-rule-of-interpretation-and-cases/
 https://www.legalservicesindia.com