Constitutional Interpretation

Introduction

Interpreting the current statutes and laws is one of the most important duties assigned to the
judiciary. Courts function within the parameters of legal frameworks that include several laws,
statutes, the Constitution, and delegated legislations when they administer justice in legal
disputes. Democratic nations like India have extensive legal frameworks with a multitude of laws
and rules.
The legislature creates and drafts written laws and statutes in accordance with procedural
parliamentary norms. Courts interpret the fundamental ideas enshrined in these laws in order to
administer justice in judicial proceedings. The foundation of legal interpretation is found in
written laws, and courts uphold justice by rendering decisions in cases involving legal conflicts.

To interpret statutes accurately and prevent wrongful interpretation of laws, courts adhere to
specific rules that shape their understanding of legislation. One fundamental rule of
interpretation is the Literal Rule, where the court interprets the wordings of the law as they stand.
However, despite the clarity of language, certain loopholes within the law can create ambiguity
and absurdity if courts strictly adhere to the natural meaning of statutory language. The judiciary
is assigned a position of high prominence in democratic nations. The crucial task of interpreting
the Constitution's provisions is carried out by the courts. The courts serve as the ultimate
interpreter, defender, and guarantor of the Constitution's supremacy. The judiciary must play a
significant role in interpreting and upholding the human rights enshrined in the nation's
fundamental legislation. As a result, it is important to think about how the judiciary ought to
handle constitutional interpretation. The judiciary must come up with a practical knowledge to
interpret the numerous rights enshrined in the Constitution in a purposeful and innovative
manner. Constitution interpretation is an extremely creative judicial role that needs to align with
the concept of the constitution.

Meaning: The Latin word "interpretari," which means to explain, elucidate, comprehend, or
translate, is where the word "interpretation" originates. Interpretation is essentially the process of
explaining and translating any written content. This includes the process of determining the
actual meaning that words used in statutes and other written documents actually signify. A
variety of sources—albeit a restricted one—are utilized in this procedure to examine the written
word and clarify the exact meanings expressed by the words in legislation or other written
materials.
Comprehending the fundamental nature of the law is necessary for interpreting statutes. This
procedure, which is frequently used by courts, seeks to ascertain the legislature's exact intent.
Courts are tasked not only with comprehending the law but also with applying it meaningfully to
individual cases. By interpreting a document or Act, one can determine its actual meaning and
ensure that it fulfills the original objective of the legislature.
Even when they deviate from the literal meaning, statutes may have ambiguities or lacunae that
need to be resolved. This frequently calls for the use of different interpretive standards and
theories. Clarifying the meaning of statutory wording that may be imprecise or unclear is the
main objective of interpretation.

First, the provision was interpreted literally; second, the courts scrutinized all possible
interpretations, leading to the creation of the basic structure doctrine; third, the Apex Court's
decisions were based on fairness, a phase of eclecticism; and fourth, the current phase, in which
the court is beginning to interpret the provision in a transformative manner. This article will go
over the many methods the Court used to interpret the Indian Constitution. The three methods are
Purposive, Textualist, and Doctrinal.

Basic guidelines for interpreting the Constitution

1. The words must be given their full impact if they are straightforward and clear.
2. One must read the constitution in its entirety.
3. It is necessary to use harmonious construction principles.
4. A liberal and expansive interpretation of the constitution is required.
5. The court must interpret the wording of the constitution to determine its spirit.
6. While interpreting, both internal and external aids may be used.
7. The Constitution takes precedence over other laws.
The three most significant interpretations of the constitution are out of the five.
1. The Exact Interpretation
It basically states that the Constitution's exact wording should be interpreted literally as it
appears in the text of the document. Since this approach holds that the Constitution is the
document that the people have ratified, the Court should not make any reference. This
interpretive approach does not permit or encourage the Court's interpretation of what the
Constitution "really" or "should" mean.
However, it is obvious that this strategy has problems. The Constitution is a widely worded
and ambiguous constitution that does not always lend itself to literal interpretation.
2. The Intentional Explanation
Due to the obvious challenges in applying the Literal technique, the Court has often
interpreted the Constitution in a more expansive manner. In essence, the purposive
approach asks what the fundamental "purpose" of the relevant constitutional clause is.
What was the aim of that article or sub-article? The Court can determine the meaning of the
actual words by posing these queries.
3. Historical analysis
This method calls into question the general consensus at the time the Constitution was
passed and/or the relevant constitutional clause. Extra-Constitutional resources allow us to
ascertain the state.
4. According to a contemporary (current) interpretation
The current situation must be taken into consideration when interpreting the Constitution. It
is necessary to take into account the current state of affairs and conditions.Constitutional
interpretation from a current or modernist perspective reads the document as though it were
ratified right now. What relevance would it have now, if it were written now? How do the
wording of the Constitution change in light of modern life? The primary objection to
originalism is that if the Constitution is only understood in the context of the colonial era, it
becomes antiquated and irrelevant to contemporary life. Furthermore, we are contemporary
people with the same difficulties reasoning irrationally as those of the 18th century, just as
those men would have had difficulty thinking irrationally, despite having more than
hundreds of years of history and legal precedent to fall back on.
 5. Congruous Architecture
When there is a disagreement between two or more statutes, or between the sections or
provisions of the statutes, the doctrine, or the norm of harmonious construction, is applied.
In order to give effect to both provisions and ensure that none of the two are rendered void
or destroyed, the courts in each case harmonize the contradictory provisions by reading
both the provisions and the original intention of the law or rule maker.

Principle of constitutional interpretation

 The Doctrinal Method

1. The Colorable Legislation Doctrine
In plain English, the concept of "colourable legislation" essentially refers to the issue of
the legislature's competence to pass laws. In essence, it alludes to the legislative practice
of passing legislation that, on its face, is not permitted by the constitution but is instead
colored with a secondary goal that subtly permits the original objective.
This theory is predicated on the legal maxim What is impermissible to do directly is also
impermissible to do indirectly: Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per
obliqum.

2. The Pith and Substance Doctrine

This philosophy emphasizes or centers on comprehending the actual nature and attributes
of law. According to the doctrine, the actual topic at hand should be contested, not its
coincidental consequences in other fields. Article 246 enumerates the legislative capacity
indicated in the lists under the Seventh Schedule, providing an example of how this idea
is used. It is relevant that the legislature will pass laws on the topics covered by the lists,
but there may be unintentional legislative trespassing that leads to the proclamation of a
certain legislation as being beyond the bounds of authority. The justification for this
theory is that the Federal and State Legislatures, at any given point of time.

3. Eclipse Doctrine

According to the eclipse doctrine, any law passed by the legislature that conflicts with
 Part III of the Indian Constitution shall be deemed unlawful and unworkable to the degree
that its provisions violate the fundamental rights. Article 13(1) underscores that the State
is prohibited from enacting laws that conflict with fundamental rights, and any legislation
that does so will be null and void.3. Eclipse Doctrine

4. The Severability Doctrine

This specifically refers to situations in which a provision is inconsistent with the

fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the constitution, and in which said
inconsistent provision may be split off and deemed void by the court, leaving the
remaining provisions compliant with applicable provisions.
By using this theory, the court simply declares provisions that violate Part III of the
constitution and that are separable from the remainder of the act or statute invalid, not the
entire act or statute.

5. Interpretation with a purpose

As the term implies, Purposive Interpretation refers to the process by which the court
considers the reason(s) behind the enactment of the relevant provision or statute while
interpreting it, either in a statute or the constitution. In order to determine the proper
interpretation that will lead to the administration of justice, the court will therefore
examine the intent behind the legislation.

 Methodological Approach
Literal interpretation is another term for textualism. The general rule of statute
interpretation is that the Court will apply the literal rule of interpretation when
interpreting the statute or any element of it. Literal rule refers to following the terms
specified in the statute. Using this method, the court interprets the constitutional
provisions literally. This rule states that a statute's words, phrases, and sentences should
normally be interpreted in accordance with their literal and grammatical meanings.
Case law- The Supreme Court declined to include the ideas of natural justice into the notion of
procedure established by law in the A.K. Gopalan case, instead giving Article 21 of the
Constitution a strict and literal meaning. In interpreting the word law under Article 13(2) in
relation to the Parliament's authority to change the Constitution under Article 368, the Supreme
Court also applied textualist interpretation.

In fact, the Constitution remained quiet on whether or not a constitutional change falls within this
word under Article 13(2). The Supreme Court distinguished between the Parliament's
Constituent power and regular legislative authority in 1951. It was decided that Article 368 gave
the Parliament complete authority to change the constitution. Nevertheless, an 11-judge court
overturned this decision, ruling that the authority granted by Article 368 could not be used to
restrict or eliminate the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution.

Conclusion
The courts interpret the statute or constitution to make sense of it and determine what the words
intended to mean in each situation. By analyzing the natural and grammatical sense of the words
and phrases used in the statute, the courts interpret the legislation in an effort to determine the
legislators' intentions. As can be seen above, the courts have taken distinct stances when
interpreting the Constitution's provisions in order to fulfill their intended purposes. In some
historic rulings, courts have employed theories other than the conventional literal interpretation
approach to further the goals of justice.
Over the course of the last seven decades, the Supreme Courts have modified their rules of
interpretation to align with shifting political ideologies and public policies. The Constitution is
regarded as the mother of all laws, and it is said that every law originates from the Constitution
itself. Therefore, judges have a primary duty to uphold and preserve the sanctity of the mother
document so that the law of the land is never in danger.
As evidenced by Khanna J's textual approach in Kesavanada Bharati (supra)23 and Chandrachud
J's shift from textualism to structuralism in the Minerva Mills case24, judges have not been
constrained by a single interpretation methodology since 1950 and have instead shown a
willingness to consider alternative approaches depending upon cases and circumstances. The
Court of Appeals stated "....in order to ascertain the true meaning of the terms and phrases
employed, it is legitimate for the Court to go beyond the arid literal confines of the provisions
and call in aid in other well-recognized rules of construction..."25 However, the absence of a
uniform method for interpreting the constitution has resulted in several reversed and inconsistent
rulings as well as peculiar, outcome-focused decisions. A judiciary is susceptible to criticism and
oversight, and one of its advantages over other governmental branches is its capacity for
accessibility. Based on the previously outlined criteria, a comprehensive approach to
constitutional interpretation is necessary when considering the social, political, and economic
exigencies of the time period the court is asked to interpret. Thus, it is clear that the process of
interpretation entails turning the Constitution into a practical legislation or instrument by
approaching it as a dynamic, living text that must be appropriately construed to satisfy the
demands of various eras. Mauro Cappelletti, a distinguished jurist, advised in "The Judicial
Process in Comparative Perspective"26 that:
"I have repeatedly argued that it is a fundamental and dangerous policy error to design Supreme
Courts, national or otherwise, as organs bound to decide legions of cases brought to them, at the
cost of overload and superficiality of decisions, rather than arming them with tools and/or
shielding them from access-screening so they can focus their decision-making activity on cases
of greater importance for the uniform interpretation, evolution, and'modernization' of the law.
This will enable the Apex Court to deal with important constitutional issues requiring
interpretation of the Constitution more effectively.

Salmond states: "The process by which the courts attempt to ascertain the meaning of the
legislature through the medium of the authoritative forms in which it is expressed is known as
interpretation or construction." When it comes to aligning the Constitution with the democratic
values of the State, interpretation of the document becomes greater significance. The Indian
Constitution is the longest in the world, and it is clear that diverse principles have been employed
by the courts to interpret its fundamental provisions about equality, private rights, and other
matters. Thus, when deciding any issue of constitutional significance, the courts have never
bound themselves to the literal rule of interpretation alone. It is clear that judges today have
begun to apply the purposive approach of interpretation in an effort to comprehend and carry out
the intentions of the constitution's drafters.

The provided doctrines were modified to fit the Indian environment even though they were based
on concepts and ideas from all around the world. The center-state relationship paradigm used in
India is neither federal nor unitary. It is a cross between the two, best characterized as "quasi-
federal." Commentators have noted that the Indian Constitution is "unitary in spirit and federal in
structure" as a result of this.
If one considers Indian center-state interactions in the context of constitutional interpretation
theories, the observation appears to be warranted. These doctrines are selected, adjusted, and
implemented in a way that prioritizes the views of the center over those of the state. As we've
seen, the doctrines are typically skewed in favor of the union legislature when it comes to
instances of its legislative competence being violated.