Isabella Carter
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the Republic of India. It is one of the longest and most detailed written constitutions in the world, containing 448 articles. The constitution is interpreted by the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, which is empowered to make rules and appointments. The interpretation of the constitution has evolved through various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, such as in the cases of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), and Indra Sawhney v UOI (1993). The Supreme Court has also determined whether laws conform with the constitution, as outlined in Article 13.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of adoption | 26 November 1949 |
| Date of effectiveness | 26 January 1950 |
| Replaced | The Indian Independence Act 1947 and the Government of India Act 1935 |
| Influenced by | The Government of India Act 1858, the Indian Councils Acts of 1861, 1892 and 1909, the Government of India Acts 1919 and 1935, and the Indian Independence Act 1947 |
| Nature | A social document, aided by its Parts III & IV (Fundamental Rights & Directive Principles of State Policy, respectively) |
| Amendments | The Indian Constitution does not contain a provision to limit the powers of Parliament to amend it |
| Interpretation | Interpreted by the judiciary and the Supreme Court |
| Parliamentary system | Yes, with a Prime Minister who exercises most executive power |
| Number of parts | 25 |
| Number of articles | 448 |
| Number of schedules | 12 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court interprets the Indian Constitution
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of the Republic of India and is the apex of the entire judicial system. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of 33 fellow judges. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It has the power of judicial review and can invalidate both normal laws and constitutional amendments as per the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all other Indian courts, as well as the union and state governments.
The Constitution of India grants all citizens Fundamental Rights and empowers the independent judiciary to invalidate legislation or government actions that violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court is required to safeguard these Fundamental Rights.
In its early years, the Supreme Court adopted a textualist approach, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used in the Constitution. In the second phase, the Court began exploring other methods of interpretation. Appeals to the text of the Constitution were gradually overtaken by appeals to the Constitution's overall structure and coherence.
The Supreme Court of India was constituted as per Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution of India. The fourth chapter of the Indian Constitution is "The Union Judiciary". Under this chapter, the Supreme Court of India is vested with all jurisdiction.
To be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for at least five years, a Judge of a High Court or an Advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years. Alternatively, they must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Naga People's Front: Indian Constitution Supporters?
You may want to see also
The Court's interpretation of the Constitution's 'basic structure'
The Indian Constitution establishes a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister who exercises most executive power. Notably, the Constitution does not contain a provision limiting Parliament's power to amend it. However, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court asserted that certain features of the Constitution are integral to its functioning and existence, forming its 'Basic Structure' that cannot be altered. This doctrine highlights the Constitution's supremacy over parliamentary power.
In its early years, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution literally, focusing on the plain meaning of the words. This approach is exemplified in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case, where the Court ruled that Articles 19, 21, and 22 covered different subjects and should be interpreted separately. However, the Court later transitioned to a structuralist interpretation, considering the Constitution's overall structure and coherence.
During this second phase, the Court reaffirmed the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, deciding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution does not extend to changing its fundamental framework. This framework, or 'basic structure,' encompasses an open-ended set of features exclusively within the Court's control. When Parliament attempted to overturn this ruling by amending the Constitution, the Court firmly rejected this move, emphasising the integrity of the 'Basic Structure.'
Indian Constitution: A Quasi-Federal Document Explained
You may want to see also
The Court's interpretation of fundamental rights
The interpretation of the Indian Constitution is a complex process that involves various entities, including the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the Parliament. The interpretation of fundamental rights, as outlined in Part III (Article 12–35) of the Constitution, is a crucial aspect of this process. These fundamental rights guarantee civil liberties and ensure that all Indian citizens can lead their lives with peace and harmony, enjoying the full spectrum of rights and freedoms.
In its early years, the Supreme Court adopted a textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used. This approach can be seen in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, where the leader of the Communist Party of India claimed that his detention under preventive detention legislation was inconsistent with Articles 19 (freedom), 21 (life), and 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest). The Supreme Court, in its interpretation, decided that these articles should be read as separate codes rather than together.
However, the Court's interpretation evolved over time, and in the second phase, it began exploring alternative methods. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) exemplified this shift. The Court concluded that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its "basic structure," which includes integral features such as fundamental rights. This interpretation established the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine, preventing Parliament from granting itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution and safeguarding the Fundamental Rights of individuals.
The right to life, as interpreted by the Court, has been incrementally expanded to include a wide range of rights, such as clean air, speedy trial, and free legal aid. This interpretation has empowered the Supreme Court to play a significant role in governing the nation and protecting the rights of its citizens. The Court's interpretation of fundamental rights is not limited to individual cases but also extends to broader constitutional guarantees, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of association.
In conclusion, the interpretation of fundamental rights by the Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, has been a dynamic process. The courts have played a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights of citizens, ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme power of the nation, and any laws or amendments made by Parliament do not contravene its basic structure, including the protection of fundamental rights.
Understanding Ordinance Duration in the Indian Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Court's interpretation of Articles 14 and 16
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution deals with equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all citizens of India, regardless of their caste, creed, religion, gender, or any other personal characteristic. The article has been interpreted and applied by the courts to protect the right to equality, the right to a fair trial, the rights of minority groups, and the rights of transgender persons.
The Indian judiciary has interpreted the Constitution to ensure a just and equitable society, free from the fear of these rights being violated. The courts have held that Article 14 requires that the state shall not discriminate between persons in like circumstances and that equal laws must apply to all in the same situation. This includes not only the actions of the state but also those of private individuals and corporations that have a close connection with the state. For example, in the case of Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, the Court held that the provisions of Article 14 apply to private educational institutions receiving government aid or recognition.
The interpretation of Article 14 has also evolved in the context of affirmative action or reservation policies. The Supreme Court has held that reservation policies aimed at providing equal opportunities to historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups do not violate Article 14. In the case of E. P. Royappa (1973), the Supreme Court provided guidance on the arbitrariness of an act, stating that "equality is antithetic to arbitrariness".
The Supreme Court has used Article 14 to strike down laws and actions that are discriminatory and violate the right to equality. For example, in the case of Visakha v State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court held that even though there is no express provision for sexual harassment in the workplace under the Indian Constitution, it is implicit through the fundamental rights of women to gender equality and the right to life and to live a dignified life. In another case filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA), the Court held that the right to equality under Article 14 extends to transgender persons as well.
Article 16 of the Indian Constitution is closely related to Article 14, with both articles having the principle of equality as their aim. Clause (4) of Article 16 is a means of achieving this objective, and both provisions must be harmonized to uphold the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.
Framing the Indian Constitution: A Step-by-Step Journey
You may want to see also
The Court's interpretation of Articles 19, 21, and 22
The Indian Constitution's Articles 19, 21, and 22 are interpreted by the Supreme Court of India, which has played a significant role in interpreting and expanding the scope of these fundamental rights through various landmark judgments. These three articles are interrelated and provide the foundation for protecting the basic rights and freedoms of citizens in India.
Article 19
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to citizens, including freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably without arms, the right to form associations or unions, the right to move freely throughout India, and the right to practice any profession or occupation. These rights are protected only against state actions and not against private individuals. They are also only available to citizens and not to foreigners or legal entities.
The Supreme Court has ruled that 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' includes the right to propagate one's own and others' views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, or any other means. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, made changes to Article 19(1)(a) to counteract the "abuse of freedom of speech and expression." This decision followed criticism of the government's response to issues like the West Bengal refugee crisis and extrajudicial killings in Madras.
Article 21
Article 21 is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty. It ensures that every citizen has the right to live with dignity and freedom and that the state must protect and uphold these rights. The Supreme Court has interpreted this article broadly, resulting in the recognition of several implied or inferred rights, such as the right to a livelihood, the right to rehabilitation of bonded labour, the right to swift justice, and the right to a clean environment.
In the A.K. Gopalan case (1950), the Supreme Court took a narrow interpretation of Article 21, holding that protection under this article was available only against arbitrary executive action and not arbitrary legislative action. However, in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case (1978), the Court overruled this interpretation, holding that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to live with dignity and that any action taken by the government must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Article 22
Article 22 provides safeguards for persons who are arrested or detained, ensuring that they cannot be deprived of their personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This article was included in the Constitution following the A.K. Gopalan case, which held that the preventive detention of a person without trial or judicial review did not violate fundamental rights.
The Indian Constitution: Understanding the Power of Clauses
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Indian Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary, including the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The Supreme Court plays a significant role in interpreting the Indian Constitution, particularly in determining the compatibility of laws with the Constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights.
The interpretation of the Indian Constitution has evolved through various phases, initially focusing on a textualist and literal approach. Over time, the Supreme Court adopted alternative methods, considering the overall structure and coherence of the Constitution. Landmark judgments, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, have shaped the interpretation by recognising the "Basic Structure" Doctrine and limiting Parliament's power to amend certain fundamental aspects.
