Open Access Research Article
THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO SAFEGUARD AND INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO SAFEGUARD AND
INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- ADV. NUPUR SHRIRAM KULKARNI
Abstract
This article's goal is to provide readers with
an understanding of the Supreme Court of India's research and operations in
upholding the fundamental ideas expressed in the Indian Constitution. This
study was conducted on the subject of how the Supreme Court often plays a
crucial role in ensuring the protection and interpretation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, an effort was made to gather information by consulting a number of
papers, journals, and blogs about the part the Supreme Court has played in
undermining the fundamental principles of the Constitution through its rulings.
In this article, the meaning and role of interpretation is studied in reference
with the Constitution as well as concepts such as law of precedent in relevance
with doctrine of judicial review and various verdicts of the Supreme Court of
India are taken into consideration. The study's conclusions were drawn and
interpreted to suggest that the Indian court is one of the four pillars of
democracy that upholds democratic values. The framework for the Supreme Court's
judicial reading of the Constitution over the decades since the nation's
independence is provided by this research work.
Keywords
Supreme Court of India
Interpretation of the Constitution
Judicial review
Basic structure
Fundamental principles
Fundamental framework
Introduction
According to Hans Kelsen, a
"Constitution" is an idea of the highest calibre that establishes the
entire legal and political framework of a nation—a model for the equitable
allocation of political power among its constituent parts under the law. This
implies that the Constitution establishes the origins of statutes as well as
the bodies and processes involved in legislation. It is always necessary to
distinguish between constitutional norms and statute norms because the fundamental
principle of the Constitution serves as the cornerstone of all State orders and
must, therefore, be as firm and unchangeable as possible.[1]
The sounds of the Constitution can be readily
understood when its text is evident. Interpreting the "sound of the
silence" in the Constitution, however, becomes an obstacle when it comes
to rights, immunity, privileges, or power distribution.[2]
There is a complex relationship between
constitutional interpretation and further general amendments to the
constitution. Constitutional interpretations are frequently supported by the
ease or difficulty of amending a document. Inferences concerning the most
practical means and the lawful agent of constitutional change are raised by the
formal process of amending a constitution.[3] A
two-thirds majority in Parliament is required to amend the majority of the
Indian Constitution's provisions. At least half of the state legislatures must
also ratify amendments that impact federal matters.[4] In
actuality, the Indian Constitution has undergone numerous amendments, typically
more than once annually.
A key component for ensuring the constitution's
protection is the judiciary. It seeks to make an attempt to restore the harm
caused by the executive and legislative branches, as well as to grant citizens
the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and take into account the Directive
Principles of State Policy. The judiciary is responsible for carrying out the
law, which is the fundamental component of the democratic system. This is the
core of the constitution, indestructible even in the event that the parliament
enacts new legislation.[5]
Interpretation: Meaning and Role
Since legal experts draft enacted laws,
particularly the current Acts and Rules, it is reasonable to assume that the
language used will leave little opportunity for interpretation or construction.
The lengthy process of implementing the passed legislation has resulted in the
creation of certain guidelines for interpretation or building. “By
interpretation or construction is meant the process by which the courts seek to
ascertain the meaning of the Legislature through the medium of authoritative
forms in which it is expressed”- says Salmond.
The Legislature's goal incorporates two
elements: It conveys the idea of "meaning," or what the words mean,
in one sense, and the idea of "purpose and object," or the
"reason and spirit," which invades the statute in another. Thus, the
goal of interpretation integrates literal and purposeful methods. Put another
way, the true or legal meaning of an enactment, or the legislative intention,
is determined by analysing the meaning of the words used in the enactment in
the context of any apparent purpose or object that encompasses the wrong and
its intended remedy.[6] This expression has now entered the blessing of
the Supreme Court and has been called the “Cardinal principle of construction.”[7]
Modes of Interpretation of Constitution
The Supreme Court of United States, has relied
on specific "methods" or "modes" of interpretation—that is,
approaches to determining a specific meaning of a provision within the
Constitution—when using its authority to assess the constitutionality of
governmental action. This report provides an overview of the various arguments
in favour of and against the use of the most popular constitutional
interpretation techniques, as well as a broad description of those techniques
and examples of Supreme Court decisions that illustrate their application.[8]
1. Textualism – Textualism is an approach to interpretation
that concentrates on a legal document's text's obvious meaning. Textualism
typically focuses on the context in which terms exist in the Constitution as
well as how people would have interpreted them at the time they were ratified.
Textualists typically take the position that the text has an objective meaning
and do not consider the intentions of those who drafted, adopted, or ratified
the Constitution or its amendments when interpreting the text. Opponents contend
that judges ought to take into account values that aren't expressly stated in
the text, like those that are founded in structural relationships, practical
consequences, moral reasoning, or other factors. To put it another way,
determining the textbook's meaning might not be simple, and those who oppose
textualism might argue that in order to save the abecedarian rights and
guarantees of the Constitution, a more flexible approach that doesn't bind the
Court and policymakers to words written 300 times agone is needed.[9]
2. Originalism – Originalist methods to constitutional
interpretation take into account the meaning of the document as understood by
at least some portion of the public during the time of the Founding, in
contrast to textualist approaches, which only focus on the text of the
document. Originalists most people concur that the language of the Constitution
had a "objectively identifiable" or public meaning at the period of
the Founding, which has remained constant over time, and the responsibility of
justices and judges and This original meaning is to be constructed by other
responsible interpreters.[10]
3. Judicial Precedent – The Supreme Court's earlier rulings on
constitutional law issues are the source of constitutional meaning that is most
frequently cited. For the majority of Justices, if not all of them, legal
precedent offers potential guidelines, norms, or standards that could direct
court decisions in the future in cases with arguably comparable facts.[11]
4. Pragmatism – The Court will frequently weigh or balance
the likely practical ramifications of one interpretation of the Constitution
against alternative interpretations when using a pragmatic approach. A feature
of pragmatism is weighing the potential benefits and costs of an interpretation
to the political branches or society in order to determine which interpretation
is most likely to produce the desired result. A court might take into account
the extent to which the judiciary could contribute positively to the resolution
of a constitutional law dispute under a different kind of pragmatist approach.[12]
5. Moral Reasoning – This method contends that certain terms
(such as "equal protection" or "due process of law") in the
text of the Constitution are motivated by moral ideas or concepts, and that
judges should interpret the Constitution in light of these ideas.[13]
6. National Ethos – The idea of a "national ethos,"
which draws on the unique qualities and principles of the American national
identity and the country's institutions to elucidate the meaning of the
Constitution, is sometimes used in judicial reasoning.[14]
7. Structuralism – The relationships between the three branches
of the federal government (also known as the separation of powers), the federal
and state governments (also known as federalism), and the relationship between
the government and the people are all inferred from the structure of the
Constitution in another method of constitutional interpretation.[15]
8. Historical Practices – The meaning of the constitution is heavily
influenced by past political branch decisions, especially by their
long-standing, historical customs. In cases involving issues of federalism, the
separation of powers, and individual rights, courts have looked to past
practices for guidance on the meaning of the Constitution, especially when the
text is ambiguous.[16]
Constitutional Interpretation through an Indian
Perspective
It is clear that every judge in the United
States adheres to his or her own school of thought and becomes an unmatched
defender of it. Such an exercise is not possible in India, where it is
impossible to discuss ideologies in relation to constitutional interpretation,
as has already been discussed. The Indian Constitution can no longer be read
restrictedly. All judges have been interpreting the Constitution with the
purposive tool since Maneka Gandhi.[17]
The Supreme Court ultimately decided in S.R. Chaudhuri[18]
that debates in the Constituent assembly may be relied upon as an aid to
interpret a Constitutional provision because it is the function of the court to
ascertain the intention of the Constitution's framers. This decision ended
years of uncertainty regarding the role of Constituent assembly debates as a
tool to interpret the Constitution.[19]
The Provisions empowering the Supreme Court of
India to Safeguard and Interpret the Constitution
1. Original Jurisdiction – According to Article 131 of the Indian
Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over contestations
involving "the Centre and one or further states; the Centre and any state
or states on one side and one or further states on the other; or between two or
further states."[20] In
the forenamed governmental disputations, the Supreme Court is the only body
with original jurisdiction. It also manages the settlement of disagreements
pertaining to the presidential and vice-presidential elections. The Supreme Court,
as the highest court in the land, guards against violations of everyone's
fundamental rights. The Indian Constitution's Article 32 grants anyone the
right to petition the Supreme Court if they believe their fundamental rights
have been violated. The court will grant mandamus, quo-warranto, habeas corpus,
certiorari, and prohibition writs or orders in such a case.[21]
2. Appellate Jurisdiction – According to Articles 132, 133, 134,
and 136 of the Indian Constitution,[22]
the Supreme Court of India has the appellate jurisdiction and can handle a
variety of cases pertaining to constitutional, civil, criminal, and appeals by
special leave. It alludes to a higher court's capacity to examine and review
rulings from a lower court. The Appellate Court's job is to examine any legal
problems and mistakes that may have arisen during the lower court proceedings,
not to retry the case or determine whether the parties involved are guilty or
innocent. In summary, the Supreme Court considers appeals from individuals who
are dissatisfied with the rulings of lower courts.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction – The President is entitled to consult the
Supreme Court on any issue. The Indian Constitution's Article 143 gives the
Supreme Court the authority to counsel the President on any legal issue, fact
of public interest, or disagreement resulting from a pre-constitutional
agreement, engagement, treaty, or covenant. It is frequently used when there is
a need for legal advice or clarification on a particular matter but there isn't
a real disagreement or controversy between the parties.[23]
4. Review Jurisdiction – Article 137 of the Indian Constitution
grants the Supreme Court of India the power to examine legislation that the
legislature has approved or passed.[24]
It guarantees the fair and uniform conduct of legal proceedings and contributes
to the preservation of the judicial system's stability and integrity. The
Supreme Court may review its own ruling under Article 137, subject to any laws
passed by Parliament or rules established pursuant to Article 145. "The
Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made
by it," according to this article.
Judicial Review
'Judicial review' refers to a court's authority
to determine whether a statute, executive order, or other official action is in
conflict with the written constitution and, if so, to declare it so. Federalism
requires judicial review as one of its fundamental requirements. It is quite
reasonable to view the courts under a federal constitution as the defenders of
individual liberties and the custodians of the constitution. The foundation of
constitutionalism, which suggests limited government, is judicial review.[25]
Since the Indian Constitution is federal in
nature, it is the ultimate law of the land. It assigns the Union Parliament and
the State Legislatures equal authority over legislation. Thus, the High Courts
and the Supreme Court make sure that no government goes beyond its bounds of
power. Any competent court has the authority to declare a legislative enactment
unconstitutional if it violates any provision of the Constitution. Public
opinion is passive in a democracy, and it is even worse in India, according to
K. V. Rao. For this reason, the judiciary must step in to save the day. If not,
the constitution loses its equilibrium and becomes overly dependent on the
tyranny of the majority and executive supremacy - neither of which the framers
intended.[26]
Additionally, our Constitution clearly provides
for judicial review of legislation to ensure that it complies with its
provisions. Article 13(2) states: "Any law made in violation of the clause
shall, to the extent of violation, be void." The State is prohibited from
making laws that restrict or take away the rights granted by Part III.[27]
Article 32 (1) additionally stipulates the right to petition the Supreme Court
through the proper channels in order to enforce the rights granted by Part III
of the Constitution.[28]
Role played by the Supreme Court of India in
Interpreting the Constitution through various Verdicts
In the well-known case Gopalan v. State of
Madras, 1950,[29]
the accused's attorney argued that article 21, which guaranteed the protection
of legally established procedures, did not support the administrative
discretion to imprison a citizen upon official satisfaction of the necessity of
his detention granted under the Act. He conserved that "due process of
law" and "according to procedure established by law" were
synonymous. However, in his representation of the Union of India, the Attorney
General argued that the legal guarantee of procedure protected "nothing
more than procedure prescribed by any law made by a competent
legislature." The "due process" clause and everything that the
American constitution meant by it had already been rejected by the Constituent
Assembly. Article 21 used the term "law" to refer to the enacted law
rather than just, or natural law. Therefore, contrary to what the American
Supreme Court claimed under the due process clause, the Indian Supreme Court
lacks the authority to conduct judicial reviews. Therefore, regardless of how
harsh or irrational the law may be, if it deprives someone of their life or
personal freedom, it is rightful for the legislator to do so. The
aforementioned ruling outlined the legal procedure and provided an overview of
the nation's personal liberty laws.
In 1959, the Searchlight case[30]
addressed the significant problem of restricting a citizen's basic right to
freedom of speech and expression when it interfered with the use of a parliamentary
privilege. In the 1959 Express Newspapers v. Union of India case,[31]
the question of whether the freedom granted by article 19 (1) (a) encompassed
press liberty in its broadest sense was thoroughly examined. According to the
Court, the press had the right of free propagation and free circulation,
without any previous restraint on publication, because liberty of the press was
an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by that
article. In the 1962 Sakal Papers v. Union of India case,[32]
the Court went one step further and invalidated the Newspaper (Price and Page)
Act, 1956 which set limits on the quantity of pages and costs of newspapers.
The Supreme Court, in Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala,[33]
ruled by a majority of 7:6 that Parliament can amend any provision of the
Constitution to implement out the socioeconomic duties that the Preamble
guarantees to the citizens, provided that the amendment does not alter the
fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. The court determined that the
word "amend," as used in Article 368, does not allude to modifications
that could alter the fundamental framework of the constitution. Any amendment
to a specific Constitutional provision proposed by Parliament must pass the
fundamental structure test. Furthermore, it was determined that the Parliament
could alter the Fundamental Rights to the extent that they are not covered by
the Constitution's basic structure, given its unrestricted authority to amend
the document subject to its basic framework. Additionally, the parliament's
actions could be reviewed by the court and declared invalid if they undermine
the basic structure of the Constitution. It did not, however, preclude the
judiciary from reviewing any proposed constitutional amendment in light of the
fundamental provisions of the document.
The theory of Basic Structure states that the
Parliament can change the Constitution indefinitely, with the only restriction
being that the changes cannot alter the basic structure of the document. The
fundamental elements of the Constitution are what give our Constitution its
spirit and essence, and the Parliament should not in any way tamper with them.
The bench made no reference to the fundamental framework of the Constitution;
instead, the courts were left to interpret it. The courts must determine
whether or not a given amendment infringes upon the fundamental provisions of
our Indian Constitution. The landmark Kesavananda Bharti’s case gave the
Constitution stability.
In the 1950 Chiranjit Lal case,[34]
the majority of Supreme Court judges provided the following definition of the
term and significance of the "equal protection of law" guarantee:
‘The protection of equal laws is what is meant by the guarantee of the equal
protection of the laws.’ It prohibits class legislation, but it does not
prohibit classification based on justifiable differences. Legislation that is
restricted in its goals or in the areas it is intended to be used does not
violate this provision. It only stipulates that everyone covered by such laws
must be treated equally under similar circumstances, with respect to the rights
granted and the obligations placed upon them.
Furthermore, when interpreting statutes, the
Indian judiciary has historically adhered to the directive principles. When
there was no authority on a subject, the directive principles provided
guidance. The fundamental rights shall take precedence over the directive
principles of State policy in the event of a conflict, as stated in article
12(2),[35]
which expressly states that the State shall not enact any legislation that
denies or restricts any of the fundamental rights. Indeed so, the Supreme Court
noted in a case that the President had appertained to it under article 143 that
the court may not entirely overpass these directive principles, but should
embrace the principle of" harmonious construction" and should endeavour
to give effect to both as substantial as possible in determining the ambit and
extent of the fundamental rights leaned on by or on behalf of any person or
body.[36]
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret
the constitutional provisions under articles 132 and 133 (2). For the Court,
interpreting the Constitution is both an honourable responsibility and a
difficult undertaking. As an incident of its task of upholding the
Constitution, it can make a judicial review of legislation brought before it to
determine if it is consistent with the provisions of the document. It
interprets the Constitution in accordance with the intention of the framers as
brought out by the clear words of its text, its essential features, and its
basic framework.
The Supreme Court defends citizens' rights as
well. Article 32 states that anyone may file a direct appeal with the Supreme
Court without first going through any lower courts, provided they can prove a
violation of their fundamental rights or an imminent threat of one.
In a welfare state, the judiciary has to
perform this delicate role. Its duties include interpreting the Constitution,
upholding fundamental rights, and assisting the government in accomplishing its
welfare objectives.
The Supreme Court actively defends and upholds
fundamental rights in addition to its constitutional interpretation duties. Any
person or group can directly approach the Court through Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) to request judicial intervention in matters of public
importance.
The Court has taken an active role to protect
society's rights and hold the government responsible. Apart from safeguarding
essential rights, the Supreme Court also acts as the defender of India's
federal system. The Court's approaches have been essential in preserving the
fundamental framework of our nation's Constitution and the equilibrium between
the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
Bibliography
1.
Powers
of the Supreme Court for Protecting and Interpreting the Constitution of India,
Free Law, https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/, last
seen on 11/08/2023.
2.
M.
C. J. Kagzi, The Constitution of India
3.
Ratnesh
Kumar Pandey and Dr. Preeti Dubey, The Role of the Supreme Court in Protecting
and Interpreting the Constitution of India, Volume 6, International Journal of
Law Management and Humanities, 685 – 696, (2023), https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.115447.
4.
Devdatta
Mukherjee, Judicial Implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy:
Critical Perspectives, Volume 1.1, IJLPP, 1, 26-31 (2014-15), https://docs.manupatra.in/.
5.
S.C.
Dash, The Constitution of India: A Comparative Study, (1968).
6.
K.V.
Rao, Parliamentary Democracy of India, (1965).
7.
Arvind
P. Datar, Rahul Unnikrishnan, Interpretation of Constitutions: A Doctrinal
Study, Vol. 29, No. 2, National Law School of India Review, 136-148 (2017),
available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26748049.
8.
Modes
of Constitutional Interpretation, Congressional Research Service, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45129.
9.
Dr
Justice A.S. Anand Justice N.D. Krishna Rao Memorial Lecture Protection of
Human Rights — Judicial Obligation or Judicial Activism, (1997) 7 SCC (Jour) 1.
10.
Lars
Vinx, The Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the
Limits of Constitutional Law, 28 (Cambridge university press, 2015).
11.
Laurence
H. Tribe, Soundings and Silences, 115 Mich. L. Rev. Online 26 (2016), available
at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr_online/vol115/iss1/3.
12. Chandrachud, Chintan, Constitutional
Interpretation, The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution November 18,
2015, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2692834.
[2] Laurence H. Tribe, Soundings and
Silences, 115 Mich. L. Rev. Online 26 (2016), available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr_online/vol115/iss1/3 last seen on 29/03/17.
[4] Constitution of India, article
368(2).
[5] Dr Justice A.S. Anand Justice N.D.
Krishna Rao Memorial Lecture Protection of Human Rights — Judicial
Obligation
or Judicial Activism,
(1997) 7 SCC (Jour) 1.
[7] Union of India v. Elphinstone
Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139.
[9] Ibid, at 7.
[10] Ibid, at 7,8 and 9.
[11] Ibid, at 10,11.
[12] Ibid, at 12,13 and 14.
[13] Ibid, at 15.
[14] Ibid, at 17.
[15] Ibid, at 18.
[16] Ibid, at 22.
[17] Maneka Gandhi v. union of India,
(1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.S
[18] S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab,
(2001) 7 SCC 126.
[20] Constitution of India, article
131.
[21] Constitution of India, article 32.
[22] Constitution of India, article
132,133,134 and 136.
[23] Constitution of India, article
143.
[24] Constitution of India, article
137.
[27] Constitution of India, article
13(2).
[28] Constitution of India, article
32(1).
[29] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras,
AIR 1950 SC 27.
[30] Pandit M. S. M. Sharma V. Shri Sri
Krishna Sinha and Others, AIR 1959 SC 395.
[31] Express Newspapers Private. Ltd.
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1986 AIR 872, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 382.
[32] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union
of India, 1962 3 SCR 842.
[33] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461.
[34] Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The
Union of India and Ors., AIR 1951 SC 41.
[35] Constitution of India, article
12(2).
[36] Devdatta Mukherjee, Judicial
Implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy: Critical Perspectives,
Volume 1.1, IJLPP, 1, 26-31 (2014-15), https://docs.manupatra.in/, last seen on 20/01/2017.
Article Information
THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO SAFEGUARD AND INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Authors: ADV. NUPUR SHRIRAM KULKARNI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/15
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.