PROJECT ON

INTERRETATION OF STATUTES

“PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF THE

CONSTITUTION”

Submitted To: - Prof. Mayuri Taware

Submitted By: - Nancy VijayKumar Sharma

Date of Submission: - 16/Oct/2023

ID NO.: -80
LL.B 3rd Year – 2023-2024

KLE COLLEGE OF LAW,

NAVI MUMBAI
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of research paper required a lot of guidance and assistance
from many people and I’m extremely fortunate to have got this along the completion of the
research project. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and assistance and I
would not forget to thank them I respect and thank Principal DINKAR GITTE, and
Professor MAYURI TAWARE for giving me this opportunity to do this research work and
providing me all support and guidance which made me complete the research work on time.

I am extremely grateful to her for providing such a nice support and guidance for converting
my thoughts into reality and for encouragement to prepare the project of

INTERRETATION OF STATUTES. The research to enhance my ability in the field of

law. I am grateful because I managed to complete this assignment within the given time. This
assignment would not have completed without effort and cooperation from my teachers hence
once again, I would like to express my gratitude to them.
 Abstract
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 76 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, Textualism and Purposive.
 Introduction
The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality
(everything happens under the Sun). Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting
rights and responsibilities. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most
importantly judges, to interpret the Constitution. When a new situation arises, or even a new
variation on an old situation arises, the Constitution is often looked for guidance. It is at this
point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play. There is no one right
way to interpret the Constitution, and judges often do not always stick to one interpretation.
Below, then, are the major divisions in interpretation.

 Interpretation
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of legislation by giving the words of
the legislation its natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of finding out the true
meaning of the words used in a statute/legislation.
The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain
principles which have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles
are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’. What we speak or write are the means of
communication. No problem arises when the words are of single meaning, but those with
plural meanings require the basic intend of the conveyor to be understood.
The object of interpretation of statutes is “to determine the intention of the legislature
conveyed expressly or impliedly in the language used”.
As stated by SALMOND, "by interpretation is meant, the process by which the courts seek to
ascertain (find out) the meaning of the legislature which they expressed."

 Principle of Constitutional Interpretation

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
constitution.

 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,
prohibeturet 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 1, 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 colorable 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.

1
K.C. Gajapati v. State of Odisha
  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.Balsara2. 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 3, 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

2
State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara
3
Keshava Menon v. State of Bombay
provisions mentioned under the Indian Press Act are violated of Article 19(1) (a) and are void
to the extent there lies inconsistency.
In I.C.Golaknath v. State of Punjab4, 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 violate 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 5,
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.

 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 provision or the statute in

4
I.C.Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela.
Article 19(1)(a),Article 368
5
A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras
Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950
Article 22
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:6
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 Sarkar7, 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 mound the future as well as guide the present.

 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, phrases and sentences of a statute are ordinarily to be understood in
their in their literal and grammatical meaning.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): In this early case, the Supreme Court held that
fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution must be construed narrowly and separately,
leading to the view that one cannot claim multiple fundamental rights for a single cause of
action. However, this interpretation was later modified by subsequent judgments.
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 textualism interpretation

6
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India
7
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
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 any exception.
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.

Case Laws
In India, the principles of interpretation of the constitution play a critical role in shaping the
legal landscape and ensuring the proper application of the Constitution of India, which is one
of the world’s lengthiest and most detailed written constitutions. Several Indian case laws
have established and elaborated on these principles. Here are some notable Indian case laws
related to constitutional interpretation:

 Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): 8 This landmark case is perhaps

the most famous in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court of India, in a 7-6
decision, held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it
cannot alter its basic structure. This decision laid the foundation for the "basic
structure doctrine," which limits the extent to which the Constitution can be amended.

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):9 In this case, the Supreme Court of India
emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution is not restricted to mere animal existence but includes a life with dignity.
This decision expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights.

8
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
  Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 10: This case is significant because it
reaffirmed the doctrine of the basic structure and emphasized that the Constitution is a
balance between federalism and parliamentary supremacy.

 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):11 This case dealt with sexual harassment at
the workplace and highlighted the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the
Constitution in the context of gender justice. The court issued guidelines to protect the
rights of women in the workplace, filling a legislative vacuum.

 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): 12 This case focused on the principles of
federalism in India and established that the use of Article 356 (President's Rule) must
be a last resort. It outlined guidelines for its application, emphasizing the importance
of adhering to constitutional principles.

 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): 13 In this case, the Supreme Court
recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, although it was not explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution. Subsequent judgments have further elaborated on the
right to privacy in the Indian context.

 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): 14 This case reiterated the doctrine of
basic structure and held that even constitutional amendments could be subject to
judicial review if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

These Indian case laws demonstrate how the principles of constitutional interpretation have
evolved and adapted over time in response to changing societal needs and legal challenges.
They also highlight the significance of the judiciary in safeguarding the Constitution and
ensuring its principles are upheld.

10
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
11
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
12
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
13
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963)
14
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
 Conclusion
In conclusion, the principles of interpretation of the constitution are crucial tools for
understanding and applying a nation's fundamental law effectively. These principles help
ensure that the constitution remains a relevant and adaptable document, capable of addressing
the evolving needs of society while upholding its core principles and values. Whether applied
to the constitution itself or to statutory law, these principles provide a foundation for legal
decision-making and contribute to the rule of law within a nation.

The specific principles of interpretation may vary across legal systems and jurisdictions, but
they generally include textualism, originalism, living constitution theory, legislative intent,
and many others. By adhering to these principles, judges, legal scholars, and policymakers
can navigate complex legal issues, resolve disputes, and make informed decisions that align
with the constitution's underlying principles and the rule of law.

Ultimately, the effective application of these principles requires a delicate balance between
honoring the constitution's original intent and adapting to the changing needs and values of
society. This balance ensures that the constitution remains a dynamic and enduring
foundation for governance and the protection of individual rights and liberties.