CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION BY THE SUPREME COURT
The Apex Court has now shifted to panchayati eclecticism which is result
oriented and thus depends on the whims and fancies of different benches in the
Supreme Court.
My disagreement is that as constitutional
adjudication affects varied aspects of people in different capacities therefore
there can be no fixed or rigid rules of interpretation. While the historical
interpretation leans on the meaning at the time of the framing of the
Constitution and textual interpretation depends on the present sense of the
text. I believe an attempt should be made to read the provisions not only in
their original social and linguistic context but in its modern context or in a
way that mediates between the two. The current phase of the Supreme Court gives
the language of the Constitution a liberal construction so as to include within
its ambit future developments than in restricting the language to the state of
things existing at the time of passing of the Constitution.
Trans formative constitutionalism is a concept which
provides that the constitution is not stagnant as it is a living entity and the
interpretation of the same changes which changing scenarios in the society this
makes it difficult for the court to have a single opinion and to stick to it
over a period of time which may explain the varied approach of court in
interpreting the constitutional document. This approach and its adoption can be
seen by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Navtej Singh Johar Vs. UOI[1]
the court relied on foreign judgments to prove the point that the Indian
Constitution has a transformative element attached to it thereby meaning that
the Constitution as a document is a living entity the meaning and
interpretation of which changes with the change in society. Even the case of
Joseph Shine Vs UOI[2]
relies heavily on the notion of transformative constitution and Sabarimala as
well relies upon the primacy of constitutional morality which is indeed a facet
of transformative constitutionalism. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[3] the leading case on privacy also reads
Article 21 in the light of changing times.
Although, we have frequently amended the
Constitution it was intended by the framers to serve for a long time without
frequent revision. It was not designed just to meet the needs of the day when
it was enacted but also the needs of the altering conditions of the future. In
the interpretation of constitutional documents way back in 1994 it was said
that “words are but a framework of concepts and concepts may change more than
words themselves”. The significance of the change of the concepts themselves is
vital and the constitutional issues are not solved by a mere appeal to the
meaning of the words without an acceptance of the line of their growth. It was
said by the Supreme Court in R.C. Poudyal Vs. UOI[4]
that “the intention of the Constitution is rather to outline principles than to
engrave details”. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United
States, stated that “a constitution's
"great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and
the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of
the objects themselves."
Thus the conclusion that can be deduced is that no
fixed principle, can beneficially serve constitutional adjudication. Neither
the textual interpretation nor structural or any other interpretation singly or
collectively is enough for a sound constitutional adjudication. Reason being
that a Constitution is composed more significantly of principles than rules.
This provides judges some amount of discretion in the matter of interpretation
of constitutional provisions but this does not mean that they may rely on their
own value preferences in construing constitutional provisions. Constitutional
provisions are “great generalities” and can be “great ambiguities” as well. The
provisions are ambiguous in the sense that in each case the judge is called
upon to furnish his own meaning but they cannot be called “vague” because they
are sufficiently meaningful concepts capable of lending guidance to enable the
judge to operationalize constitutional guarantees.
Comments
Post a Comment