Interpretation Dilemma: Dynamics of Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence
INTRODUCTION
“While we want this Constitution to be as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, nevertheless there is no permanence in the Constitutions. There should be certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital and organic people”
~ Jawaharlal Nehru
The most fundamental rule of interpretation is to rely on the plain meaning of the statute. If it is unclear and vague, the court may resort to various interpretation aids. Aids of interpretation can be classified into two types, one being the internal aid and the other, an external aid. An internal aid refers to the aid that is provided from within the statutes, for instance, short title, long title, schedule, preamble, as well as any other provision of the concerned Act. If the uncertainty persists, the court could seek external aid in interpreting a specific provision. Some of the external aids that can be relied upon are dictionaries, parliamentary debates, provisions of other Acts, foreign judgments etc.
The definition of specific terms in an Indian statute can be found in the context or occasion on which they are put to use, rather than in strict etymological language propriety. Since, it is well recognized that the terms are frequently used in their ordinary sense, dictionaries may be consulted to determine the meaning of terms as used in any statute, even though they are not be considered as authoritative in nature.
While interpreting a statute, reference to a dictionary seems to be of great significance. When an expression or a term used in a legislation could not be comprehended in common parlance, the courts can refer to the dictionary meaning of the term to seek its meaning as used in the common parlance while interpreting the legislation under question. As a result, courts consult dictionaries if the need arises to determine the ordinary meaning of terms. However, courts must exercise caution when referring to dictionaries since the dictionary definition of a word may not always be correct in a given context. Courts are not required to consult any dictionary in order to determine the general meaning of a term which has already been defined in the statute. One of the primary goals of any dictionary is to include an appropriate and comprehensive description for each word found within it. Dictionaries are referred to, not only for meaning of the word, but also to find out the general use of it. However, if the dictionary provides different meaning of the same word, then the concerned word should not be construed as per the dictionary. In such scenario, the concerned term should be interpreted as per the context in which it has been used in the provision and legislative intent behind inserting that word as well as overall scheme of the Act should be taken into consideration.
LIVING CONSTITUTION THEORY
Rewriting a country’s constitution in reaction to altered conditions, shifting social mores, or even political upheavals is not unfamiliar. Throughout its 74-year existence, the Soviet Union had four different constitutions (1918, 1924, 1936, and 1977).[i] The Soviet Union’s Communist Party came to an end in 1991, and the federation quickly fell apart. 1993 saw the adoption of a new constitution by the newly established Russian federation following this political turmoil. However, observe India. The Indian Constitution was ratified on November 26, 1949. Formally, it was put into effect on January 26, 1950. The same constitution still serves as the foundation for our nation’s governance more than 70 years after it was adopted.
This is because the judges read the Constitution in a way that allowed it to evolve throughout time to include all of the contemporary concepts of justice, liberty, and equality that were seen to be important at the time.
It is unquestionably impossible for any nation to amend its Constitution to reflect shifting national conditions or to reflect changes brought about by political upheavals. After been approved more than 70 years ago, our Indian Constitution still operates within its natural bounds and in accordance with the authors’ intentions. It was actually put into effect in 1950. Undoubtedly, the Indian Constitution has undergone much discussion; yet, this does not imply that it can accommodate every eventuality, necessitating modifications. The only explanation for this is that the nation’s goals cannot be fulfilled by the steady and unchanging Constitution. Is the Constitution a stable or dynamic document? This is the most contentious question surrounding it. Exists a living Constitution for us? Should the Constitution be a living document? Can we alter it in light of the evolving national situation? Any type of modification or adjustment is referred to be change, but is it practical and easy to implement?
The Indian Constitution recognises the necessity to adapt to the ever-changing requirements and expectations of society, which provides an answer to your query. The Constitution’s basic wording and sections may be interpreted, or it may be changed specifically by amendments.[ii]
The Indian Constitution’s Article 368 amending procedure is a laborious and time-consuming procedure. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that change is a need in society that no one can avoid. In such a case, we need the Supreme Court and High Court judges of the Court of Records to offer the required interpretation to make sure that things are made easy and that current concepts are included without causing too much trouble.
ORIGINALISM
One of the earliest and most fundamental theories of interpretation, the Originalist Theory of Constitutional Interpretation, promotes interpreting constitutional language in line with the meaning and intention that were given to it during its development. It sees the constitution as a timeless and dynamic instrument. This theory’s validity stems from the claim that unique methods of interpretation provide consistency, coherence, and establish a link between the authority of the constitution and how its regulations are applied. However, it has been seen that adherence to originalist views slows down the growth of law to reflect the constantly shifting social settings as society changes over time. In contrast to the notion of living constitutionalism, the original theory has therefore been steadily losing its significance. That being said, originalism continues to thrive in the United States.
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]
Regarding the Indian perspective, it is nearly the opposite of what it is in the US. Right now, the living constitution approach is clearly in the lead. This wasn’t always the case, though. In Indian Constitutional history, glimpses of Originalism were first noticed in the case of AK Gopalan v. State of Madras[iii]. Here, the idea of interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution “in the spirit of the Constitution” was rejected. It was believed that a broad constitutional charter like ours is better suited for the use of rigorous rather than flexible approaches of interpretation. The US’s propensity to support originalism was evident here, particularly in Justice Mukherjee’s ruling.
Nonetheless, Indian courts have exercised sufficient caution to preserve the fundamental ideas of originalism. According to Justice Scalia, originalism is the only method to guarantee that the constitution’s goal of preventing the law from reflecting specific changes in original values is upheld. One might argue that this concept served as the model for the Basic Structure theory that emerged in India. The courts have the authority to stop the alteration of the fundamental original values of the constitution thanks to the Basic Structure concept.
Constitution refers to the “original constitution,” which was ratified on November 26, 1949. Originalism can be interpreted in terms of the word “original,” that is, as the object actually was, developed, or constructed. The framers of constitutions aim to ensure that the country functions in accordance with the provisions outlined in them. The Constitutional Interpretation provides an explanation for the concept of “Originalism.” Supporters of “originalism”contended that judges should only interpret the Constitution, not alter it, and that they should only explain “what does it mean,” not “what it ought to mean,” in making this decision.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, under the second scenario, it will likely increase judicial activism, giving judges the power to interpret the Constitution differently from the people of India and robbing them of their sovereignty.
Author: Ipsita Sinha, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing
REFERENCES
[i] Chapter 9, Constitution As A Living Document, https://ncert.nic.in/ncerts/l/keps209.pdf.
[ii] John Greabe, Constitutional Connections: Textualism and Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation, available at www.concordmonitor.com/textualism-and-originalism-in-constitutionalinterpretation-8000920 (last visited on May 4, 2023).
[iii] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 27.
