PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION:

Since everything happens under the sun, the brief Constitution cannot and does not seek to cover every
possible scenario. Divergent rights and obligations might exist, even in situations where everything
appears to be in order. It is time for everyone, courts most of all, to interpret the Constitution when
disagreements occur. The Constitution is frequently consulted when a new situation—or even a fresh
take on an old one—appears. The different constitutional interpretations start to matter at this stage.
The Constitution can be interpreted in any way, and courts frequently depart from accepted
interpretations. Interpretation- Interpretation is the skill of interpreting a piece of law to reveal its true
meaning by giving its terms a common, natural meaning. It is the technique of determining a statute's or
legislation's actual meaning using word analysis. Since the courts are not supposed to interpret cases
arbitrarily, a number of principles have developed as a result of their ongoing work. These ideas are
occasionally referred to as "rules of interpretation”. The words we use to communicate are those we
write or speak. When words have a single meaning, there is no issue; but, when words have multiple
meanings, it is necessary to comprehend the conveyor's essential meaning. 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."

Constitutional Interpretation- The constitution is a naturally occurring document. The fundamental law
is this. The broad guideline used to interpret a written constitution is the same as that used to interpret
any other law. All of the provisions of the constitution should be interpreted to have equal weight. The
judiciary must use their own judgment to interpret the laws that the legislature have created. The
majority of the time, the statute's language is clear, concise, and easy to understand. With regard to
ambiguous and disagreeable provisions of the statutes, interpretation assumes greater significance. 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.

There are five interpretation of the constitution:

1. The Literal 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 Purposive Interpretation- 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. The Historical Interpretation- This method calls into question the general consensus at the time
the Constitution was passed and/or the relevant constitutional clause. We can ascertain the
mindset of individuals who approved the Constitution through a referendum by utilizing extra-
Constitutional information. Consequently, this can aid the Court in ascertaining the accurate
interpretation of the sentences mentioned within.
4. Contemporary (occurring in the present) 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 thinking irrationally as
those of the eighteenth century as those of the present, despite having more than a millennium
of history and legal precedent to draw from. Modernists believe that the Constitution is vague in
many areas and hence it permits modern interpretations to override older ones as the
Constitution ages. That is why it is called a living Constitution. The Constitution should be flexible
and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift.
Modernists do not reject originalizm - they recognize that there is value in a historical
perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially
dangerously outdated angle of attack
5. Harmonious Construction- When there is a disagreement between two or more statutes, or
between the sections or provisions of the statutes, the doctrine, or rule of harmonious
construction, is applied. In order to give effect to both provisions and guarantee that none of
the two be 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.
The harmonic construction criterion must be used when there is "a conflict between two or
more statues" or "two or more parts of a statute." The rule is based on the very basic premise
that all statutes have legal purposes and intents, and that each act ought to be read in its
entirety. Adopting an interpretation that aligns with every aspect of the Act is recommended.
The court's ruling on the provision will have precedence if it is not practicable to harmonize both
of the requirements. The general guideline for interpreting any statute is the principle of
harmonious construction. The goal of the courts should be to interpret the legislation in a way
that makes it a coherent whole. They should also adopt a construction that keeps the various
sections or components of the statute from being inconsistent or repugnant. The Apex Court
stated that courts should strive to harmonize conflicts between distinct provisions in order to
prevent "a head on clash" between the various parts of an enactment.
The letters of the constitution are fairly stationary and not a lot easy to change but the laws legislated
by the council reflect the current state of people and are dynamic. To ensure that the new laws are
harmonious with the introductory structure of the constitution, the constitution must be interpreted in
a broad and liberal manner giving effect to all its corridor and the presumption must be that no conflict
or repugnancy was intended by its framers. Applying the same sense, the provisions relating to
abecedarian rights have been interpreted astronomically and free-heartedly in favor of the subject. Also,
colorful legislative entries mentioned in the Union, State, and Concurrent list have been demonstrated
free-heartedly and extensively

In Re Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court said that in determining the fundamental rights, the court
must take into account the directive principles and employ the principle of harmonious construction in
order to give as much weight as feasible to both options by striking a balance.

The Supreme Court ruled in Qureshi v. State of Bihar that although the state must follow the directive
principles, it must do so in a way that respects basic rights.

In the case of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA, it was decided that the court must select the
interpretation of a statute that best reflects the legislature's meaning when other interpretations are
feasible.

INTERPRETATION OF THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION:

The terms of the constitution cannot be superseded by the preamble. The Supreme Court ruled in Re
Berubari that the Preamble could not be viewed as a source of substantive power because it was not a
component of the constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with the aforementioned argument in
Keshavananda Bharati's case, holding that the preamble is a component of the constitution. The
preamble must be considered when reading the constitution. Although fundamental parts cannot be
changed, the preamble may be utilized to exercise the parliament's amending power under Article 368.
The phrases "Secularism, Socialism, and Integrity" have been added to the preamble by the 42nd
Amendment.

Basic guidelines for interpreting the Constitution:-

1. The words must be given their full effect if they are straightforward and clear.

2. One must read the entire constitution.

3. Harmonious construction principles need to be used.

4. A broad and literal interpretation of the Constitution is required.

5. The language of the Constitution must be interpreted by the court to determine its spirit.

6. While interpreting, both internal and external aids may be used.

7. The Constitution takes precedence over other laws.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION:

The following principles have frequently been discussed by the courts while interpreting the
Constitution: 1. Principle of colorable 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

1) PRINCIPLE OF COLORABLE LEGISLATION:

According to the notion of colorability, the legislature can still achieve its original objective by adding a
substitute purpose to the law when it intends to do something that is prohibited by the constitution.

MAXIM-The Latin phrase "Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliqum" (What is
impermissible to do directly, permit to do indirectly) states this. The rule addresses the issue of whether
Congress has the authority to pass legislation. Colorable Law does not address the issue of bona fide or
malice behavior. A statutory breach can be obvious, overt, or direct, or it can be subtle, covert, or
indirect. It is also used in reference to the Constitutional fraud.

"The doctrine of colorable legislation" in India simply refers to a restriction on the legislature's ability to
enact laws. It enters the scene as the legislature appears to act within the bounds of its authority, but in
truth, it has gone beyond it. Therefore, the idea applies anytime legislation tries to accomplish
something indirectly that it cannot act immediately. If the challenged legislation is within the
legislature's purview, there is never a question about doing anything indirectly that cannot be done
directly.

This doctrine is typically applied to Article 246 of our Constitution, which lists the various 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 serves to define the legislative authority of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies. This
idea applies when a legislature indirectly creates laws on a subject even when it lacks the authority to do
so. This concept determines what will happen to the contested legislation.

2) 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. In their respective domains, the Union and
State Legislatures are supreme. They are not allowed to invade or trespass into the area that is
designated for the other. The Court will resolve the issue and determine whether the relevant
legislature was competent to create the law if a law passed by one trespasses upon the territory
allotted to the other. This will be done by utilizing the Pith & Substance doctrine. 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.

3) Principle of eclipse- According to the Eclipse Doctrine, a statute that conflicts with fundamental
rights is not void. Though it has been eclipsed by the fundamental right, it is not entirely gone.
By amending the pertinent fundamental right in the constitution, the inconsistency (conflict) can
be resolved, making the entire statute lawful. Any laws that were in effect in India prior to the
Constitution's adoption are null and void to the extent that they conflict with its provisions. Any
laws that were in place prior to the Constitution's adoption but did not comply with its
provisions ceased to be in effect on that date. However, the law never goes away. The
legislation is still enforceable to decide any legal dispute that arose prior to the Constitution's
adoption. A current legislation is only overshadowed to the degree that the fundamental rights
cast a shadow over it.

Case: Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay-

In this instance, the relevant statute was in effect at the time the Constitution took effect. The existing
law placed restrictions on the exercise of the rights guaranteed to Indian citizens by article 19(1) (g).
Because these restrictions could not be justified as reasonable under clause (6) as it existed at the time,
the existing law was declared void under article 13(1)[8] "to the extent of such inconsistency."

The court held that the legislation only became invalid "to the extent of such inconsistency," that is, to
the extent that it stood at odds with the provisions of Part III that guaranteed citizens' fundamental
rights. The law was declared invalid to the extent of such consistency.

As a result, the Doctrine of Eclipse allows for the legitimacy of pre-constitutional laws that violate basic
rights on the grounds that such laws are not unconstitutional from the start and lose their enforceability
only to the extent that they are inconsistent with those rights. The Eclipse disappears and the relevant
statute reactivates if a later amendment to the Constitution eliminates any discrepancy or conflict
between the current law and the fundamental rights.

4) Principal of Severability- According to the severability theory, an enactment may be partially

preserved if it cannot be saved by using a reading that is consistent with its constitutionality. The
doctrine of severability, which is outlined in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, declares that
any laws that were in effect in India prior to the document's adoption are null and void to the
extent that they conflict with its provisions. The State is not allowed to enact laws that diminish
or take away the rights guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights, which are found in Part III of the
 Constitution. Any measure passed that deviates from the Constitution's requirements is
unconstitutional. If the invalid component is truly severable, it will be severed and declared void.
(That is, whether the remaining portion can continue to function in some way even in the
absence of the severed portion.) There are instances where the Act's legitimate and invalid
provisions are so intertwined that it is impossible to tell them apart. The entire Act will be void
in such circumstances.

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

5) Principal of territorial Nexus- the Indian Constitution states unequivocally that "No law made by
Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extraterritorial
operation" (Article 245 (2)). Therefore, it is not possible to challenge a law on the grounds that it
operates outside national borders. It is well-established that our nation's courts are required to
uphold the law using the resources at their disposal and that they have no right to contest the
Legislature's jurisdiction to enact extraterritorial legislation. An extraterritorial operation does
not render a legislation unenforceable. But in certain situations, including those concerning tax
laws, some connection to India might still be required.

The following situations allow for the use of the Territorial Nexus Doctrine:

 If a state has extraterritorial operations.

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

It means that the thing to which the law applies just needs to have a sufficient territorial link with the
state, not necessarily be physically located inside its borders. In addition to being located inside its
borders, a person, piece of property, thing, or transaction may be subject to a tax by a state if there is a
substantial and genuine territorial relationship. The state laws were likewise subject to the Nexus test.

Case: Tata Iron & Steel Company v. Bihar State- Sales Tax Act was approved by the State of Bihar to
charge sales tax on items that were produced, found, and made in the state, regardless of whether the
transaction was completed inside or outside the state. The court maintained the Act's validity, ruling
that there was sufficient territorial linkage. Whether there is a sufficient connection between the thing
to be taxed and the law will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

It was noted that determining whether a territorial link was sufficient required taking into account two
factors: (1) the connection had to be genuine and not fictitious; and (2) the liability that was being
sought had to be relevant to that relationship.

6) 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.

Conclusion- The courts interpret the statute or constitution in order to clarify and to see in all cases the
intention expressed by the words used. The courts interpret as to ascertain the mind of the legislature
from the natural and grammatical meaning of the words or phrases used in the statute. The courts as
seen above has adopted different approach to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in order the
serve the purpose of the very the provision. There have been landmark judgments where courts have
used different doctrines apart from the primary method of literal interpretation to meet the ends 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.

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, 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.