The happenings of the Supreme Court of India to the Constitution are always a matter of discussion in connection with free speech, privacy or equality that are given to the Constitution by the reflecting power of the Supreme Court. The Constitution adopted in 1950 is the highest law in the country, regulating the distribution of power and the protection of the rights of the citizens.
But who determines what those words mean?
That ultimately subjective determination belongs to the Supreme Court. Under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 145, the Supreme Court acts as the final, enforcement, interpreter and guardians of the Constitution. Through its judgments, the Supreme Court not only enforces the Constitution but effectively transforms how India continues to remain a democracy.
This article explains the constitutional basis, scope, and limitations of the Supreme Court’s power of constitutional interpretation, supported by landmark judgments and evolving doctrines.
Where the Supreme Court Gets Its Power to Interpret?
(a) Article 32: The Heartbeat of Fundamental Rights
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar referred to Article 32 as the “heart and soul of the Constitution.” It gives the right to any kind of person to invoke the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
The significance of Article 32 in the context of the protection of fundamental rights can be illustrated by the decision of the Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), where the Court struck down censorship administrative orders and held that no restrictions are permissible except those in Article 19(2), which demonstrates how interpretation becomes protection.
(b) Article 136: A Safety Valve for Justice
Article 136 allows discretion to the Court to hear appeals from any judgment of any court in India. It acts as a safety valve when lower courts act differently and fail to apply the Constitution correctly.
In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (1955 AIR 520), the Court ruled that its power under this Article is plenary, enabling it to consider any issue where constitutional rights are affected.
(c) Article 141: The Law Declared Is the Law of the Land
Article 141 states that “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts”. Once the Supreme Court has interpreted a constitutional provision, that meaning it is binding upon all until and unless it is changed by constitutional benches or any amendment.
(d) Article 145: How the Court Organises Itself
Article 145 gives the Supreme Court authority to make of its own procedural rules. The guarantee of larger benches to consider questions pertaining to the Constitution, so as to ensure consistency and depth of constitutional jurisprudence, is given substantive meaning through constitutional guarantee.
The Supreme Court’s Real Job: Breathing Life into the Constitution
- The Supreme Court is not to apply the Constitution, per se, but to breathe life into words that were written on paper. Standing in the Court, you see Justices intentionally balancing words from 1950 with the lived experiences of modern-day India.
- The proper responsibility of the Court is not to create new laws, but to interpret old words in new contexts so that Parliament and the Executive do not go beyond their boundaries or the Constitution.
Doctrines Born Out of Interpretation: Lessons from Courtrooms
(a) Basic Structure Doctrine: When Parliament Met Its Limit
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment with a composition of 13 judges in the matter of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), and ruled that the Constitution’s basic structure could not be legislatively annulled by Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
The basic structure like Constitution’s supremacy, the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review were held immune from amending power. This doctrine evolved through judicial interpretation affirmed that the Constitution is paramount to Parliament.
(b) Judicial Review: The Court’s Shield Against Arbitrary Power
In the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court reaffirmed that the judicial review is a part of the basic structure and it cannot be removed from the Indian Constitution.
(c) Harmonious Construction: Making the Constitution Work Together
In the case of S.R. Bommai v Union of India, (1994), the Court was under the conflict between federalism as well the the emergency powers set out as per Article 356. By using the doctrine of harmonious construction, it was able to maintain both principles while protecting the Constitution.
Landmark Judgments That Redefined Rights
- Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India (1980): This particular case states the balance of Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.
- I.R. Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu (2007): In this particular case, even legislation in the 9th Schedule would subject to the judicial review.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017): This particular case, recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in the digital age
How Far Can the Court Go? Scope and Restraint
Scope:
The Supreme Court’s interpretative power extends to:
- Testing constitutionality of laws and executive actions
- Interpreting fundamental rights and directive principles
- Resolving Centre–State disputes under Article 131
- Advising the President on constitutional questions under Article 143
Wherever a constitutional question arises, the Court’s word is final.
Limitations:
However, the Court’s power is not limitless.
- It cannot legislate or run the government. (Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, 2008 1 SCC 683)
- It cannot rewrite the text of the Constitution.
- Parliament retains power to amend the Constitution, provided the basic structure remains intact.
As Justice R.F. Nariman observed, “Judicial creativity must never cross into judicial adventurism.”
From Text to Transformation: How Interpretation Has Evolved?
- The Supreme Court’s philosophy has moved from literalism to transformative constitutionalism. The Court now reads the Constitution through the lens of equality, privacy, and social justice.
- From same-sex rights to data protection, its judgments show how constitutional ideals adapt to modern realities. This evolution keeps the Constitution responsive to contemporary India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India does not only interpret the Constitution; it protects the spirit of the Constitution. Every right of the modern state, from free speech to privacy, exists, because the Court has given deeper meaning to the constitutional text.
Articles 32, 136 and 141 create this power in constitutional text, while cases such as Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills and Puttaswamy illustrate how interpretation both protects liberty and order.
The Supreme Court of India accomplishes its intended purpose, i.e., to be a living instrument and protecting every citizen of India.
One can talk to lawyer from Lead India for any kind of legal support. In India, free legal advice online can be obtained at Lead India. Along with receiving free legal advice online, one can also ask questions to the experts online free through Lead India.
FAQs
1. Can the Supreme Court change its own interpretation?
Yes. The Supreme Court may revisit its past rulings through a larger constitutional bench or fresh interpretation if it feels that either justice or constitutional clarity requires so.
2. Will the supreme interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court be subjected to any challenge or change?
No court lower than the Supreme Court can cancel its interpretation of the Constitution, that is why Article 141 obliges all courts to the decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court may, however, itself, revisit or change a past interpretation with a larger constitutional bench and Parliament may amend the Constitution as long as it does not violate the basic structure doctrine.
Talk to a Lawyer