Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution of India

Q. What canons of interpretation Indian judiciary adopts while interpreting the Indian Constitution? Examine. [20 marks - 2023]

Q. What are the rules for interpretation of Indian Constitution? Explain. [20 marks - 2019]

Q. Discuss the rules for interpreting the Indian Constitution. [20 marks - 2017]

Rules of Constitutional Interpretation in India

The true spirit of constitutional applicability lies in the way the courts interprete the provisions of the consitution. Constitution is made for the people of India, hence it is utmost important that the judiciary apply their minds while interpreting the constitution of India.

The following approaces are used to interprete the Constitution of India

1. Textual Approach of interpretation

In general the rule of interpretation of statute is to use literal rule of interpretation. 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 case the Supreme Court gave 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. 

2. Purposive Interpretation

In this interpretation the courts tries to look into the purpose for which the the provision or the statute in question was enacted 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) vs Union of India held that the judiciary must interpret the Constitution having regard to the spirit and further by adopting a method of purposive interpretation.

3. Doctrinal Approach

The following established doctrines are used by the courts to interpret the constitutional provisions

(a) Doctrine of Colorable Legislation

The doctrine of colorable legislation puts restrictions on the legislature while framing laws so that the legislature cannot transgress the provisionso enshrined under the constitution of India.

In KC Gajapati vs State of Odisha, the SC 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. 

(b) Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The doctrine states that the state and the union governments should enact laws within their specified areas as enshrined under seventh schedule and will not encroach upon the other's teritory. If however there is incidental encroachments, the courts will apply the doctrine of Pith and Substance

However, if one among the state and the Centre does encroach upon the sphere of the other, the courts will apply the Doctrine of Pith and Substance.If the true object of the legislation relates to a subject within the competence of the legislature that enacted it, it should be held to be intra vires although it may incidentally encroach on the matters not within the competence of the legislature.

The doctrine was applied for the first time by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs FN Balsara and upheld this. 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.

(c) Doctrine of Eclips

The Doctrine of Eclipse states that any law which is in contradiction with fundamental rights is invalid to the extent to which it is violating the fundamental rights. As soon as the inconsistency is removed, it will become valid automatically. The law remains overshadowed by the fundamental right. 

In the Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay case, the petitioner was prosecuted under the provisions of the 1931 act, the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, for publishing a pamphlet with no permission.

In the case of FN Balsara, the Court declared Section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 as void because it violated Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. The Court again held that only the part of the statute that is violative of Part III is inoperative and not the whole Statute.

(d) Doctrine of Severability

This doctrine provides that when any provision of a law which is not consistent with the fundamental rights, can be separated and will be declared void by the Court, the rest of the provision remains consistent with the relevant provisions.

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.