Interpretation of the Constitution: A 75-Year Legacy of the Supreme Court

I. Introduction: Constitution by ‘We the people of India’

“Constitution is not a mere lawyer’s document, it is a vehicle of Life, and it’s spirit is always the spirit of Age.” -Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Our Indian constitution marks 75 remarkable years of it’s enduring legacy, alongside our Honourable Supreme Court, both existing since 26^th January, 1950. The foundational ideals of our Constitution- equality, liberty and a spirit of fraternity strive to serve as the guiding light in our mission to delivering justice to every common citizen of our nation. Our constitutional democracy is a sovereign, democratic republic as well as socialist and secular (as added by the 42^nd Amendment Act, 1976)². The Preamble expresses the past in the words “on this twenty-six day of November”, the present as ‘We the people’ of India, and anticipates the future by the phrase “having solemnly resolved³.” The term ‘we the people’ being constant present, encapsulates the generational spirit with the indestructible present. Therefore, the Preamble to our Constitution in itself outlines its effect and operability in past, present and the future, and the Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed its role in ensuring the same.

Our Constitution strives to endow the largest and most diverse democracy and seeks to govern a massive population of 1.4 billion, encompassing 28 states, speaking more than 120 languages and embracing nearly every mainstream religion in the world. Regardless of differences, our citizens identify the Constitution as ‘common’. It comprises a unique feature of equal application to every citizen, forming a part of their daily lives, being the voice of the voiceless and expressing those subdued and muted. Our constitution is a legal, social and political document as well as a social contract, which marks the transfer of colonial power, shedding away the colonial legacy on Indian soil. It attempts to undo the past injustices meted out to women, disabled, Dalits, tribes, the indigenous, who led the first wave against British, as well as the marginalized, who first sowed seeds of liberty, equality and fraternity on the Indian soil.

II. The essence and mission of our constitution

The historical day of 26^th November 1949, marks the adoption of our Constitution⁴ by “We the People” of India, a document encapsulating the rights and liberties of our citizens and dreams and aspirations of nation building. A.C. Guha rightfully echoed the sentiment of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, proclaiming, “The individual is the soul of the whole constitution⁵.” It is ‘we the people’ who are the source of its authority. It is a governing document of the people, for the people and by the people.

As Nani Palkhivala said- “The constitution represents the Charter of power granted by liberty, and not the Charter of liberty granted by power.⁶” Therefore, it is not the state who granted liberty to its citizens. It is ‘we the people’ of India who have bestowed power upon the state and thereby cherish liberty as citizens of a free democratic republic.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said: “The past clings on to us still in some measure and we have to do much before we redeem the pleasures we have so often taken.⁷” This embodies the mission of our constitution. The Supreme Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association case said that besides the struggle for independence from British, a parallel struggle continued since centuries and still exists i.e. the struggle for social emancipation. Our Constitution is an end product of both these struggles⁸.

III. Constitution as a living document: A constant state of evolution

In Constitutional Identity, Gary Jacobson justly stated that “A Constitution acquires identity through experience.⁹” In the words of Granville Austin, “The constitution is first and foremost a social document.¹⁰” The constitution of today, which although stood the test of time, is remarkably different from how our constitutional makers drafted it to be. Since 1950, it has been in a constant state of evolution, keeping itself in consonance with the social realities of the contemporary times.

Our Constitution is highly inclusive and durable. It has evolved to the exigencies of time and proved to be a fine struck balance between rigidity and flexibility. Since the enactment of the Constitution, article 368¹¹ has been used extensively, with the latest 106th amendment providing one-third reservation of women in Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. This is in drastic contrast to merely 15 women members in the Constituent Assembly in 1950.

The 44th Amendment¹² deprived the Right to Property of its fundamental status while the 61st Amendment¹³ reduced voting right from 21 to 18 years of age, thereby integrating younger population in political participation. The 73rd and 74th Amendment¹⁴ introduced the concept of rural and urban self-government and Panchayati Raj, at grassroot levels that strengthened constitutional federalism through decentralization of powers. Moreover, the 86th Amendment Act¹⁵ inserted Article 21A¹⁶, thereby conceiving the Right to Education of children between the age of 6 to 14 years.

IV. Interpretation of the black letters of the Constitution

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is”, said Charles Evans Hughes¹⁷.

Over the decades, the Judiciary in India has realised the emancipatory power of the constitution and has actively been a protector, interpreter, a watchful guardian and the torchbearer of transformative constitutionalism. It has given life and meaning to our constitution, ensuring the ideals of social, economic and political justice thrive and prevail.

The notion of social justice changed from ‘Caste-based Reservation’ in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan¹⁸ to the recent subclassification of scheduled castes in State of Punjab v Davinder pal.¹⁹ The Supreme Court, in this remarkable judgement, upheld the permissibility of sub classification within the Scheduled Castes and for grant of separate quotas to more backward groups within SC category. Prior to the major LPG reforms in 1991, in the Bank Nationalisation case²⁰, the Supreme Court laid down the ‘effect test’ of such acts found to be violative of the constitution to be struck down. In the interest of economic justice, in PUDR v Union of India, 1982,²¹ it upheld the rights of the workers, their minimum wages and conditions of the work. Ensuring political justice, in Lily Thomas v Union of India²², the court held that convicted persons could not be disqualified from contesting elections. Moreover, recently the theory of One Nation One Election has gained central stage of political reforms.

In SR Bommai v Union of India²³, secularism was held to be a part of the basic structure of our Constitution, giving a sense of security to the citizens, with respect to the practice, profession and propagation of their religion. However, the doctrine of essentiality, as used by the Supreme Court in Babri Masjid case²⁴, which determines the essential religious practices as under Article 25²⁵ and 26²⁶, has proved to be contentious. It has been used in over 50 cases since its formulation in 1954, in the Shirur Mutt Case²⁷, wherein the Supreme court ruled that only practices ‘integral’ to a religion are protected by the Right to freedom of Religion in our constitution. The court has played a role in demarcating the central tenets of a religion, from its extraneous practices. It stated-

”A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.” ²⁸

V. The role of supreme court in cultivation of constitutional morality

According to Durkheim, morality is not static, it is sacred. In ancient times, it is the morality which guided the society. This, however, turned with the inception of the social contract theory, which emphasized that law should prevail.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated.” The question arises as to how far the gap has been bridged between constitutional morality and public morality in the past 75 years.

In NALSA v Union of India²⁹, the Supreme Court recognized transgender persons as the ‘third gender’. The Puttaswamy judgement³⁰ upheld the right of freedom of self-determination of one’s gender. In Supriya Chakravarty v Union of India, the verdict of 3:2 ratio denied the ‘Right to Marry’ to queer people. It upheld the validity of S.4 of Special Marriage Act, which recognizes marriages only between heterosexual couples.

In the landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India³¹, the court partially struck down S. 377 of IPC³² decriminalizing same-sex relations between consensual adults, except all acts of carnal intercourse against minors and the acts of bestiality. This was a celebrated decision of the apex court, in the interest of all. This certainly cultivated a sense of constitutional morality. However, a major criticism is that this decision of the Court was overturned by the enacted law by the Parliament, in the BNS which omitted the provision of bestiality. The current prevailing law omits and excludes the provision of animal sexual abuse, bestiality, or sodomy and decriminalizes the same. ³³

Similarly, in Joseph Shine v Union of India³⁴, the court decriminalised S. 497 of adultery as an offence under IPC, as violative of articles 14³⁵, 15³⁶ and 21³⁷ of the Constitution, thereby ensuring the gender neutrality of the offence. The notion of Adultery changed and evolved from Yusuf Abdul Aziz v State of Bombay³⁸ where S.497 was held constitutional, to Soumithri v Revathi³⁹ to the status quo of Joseph Shine case⁴⁰. The court held that the section treated women as property of their husbands and was based on gender stereotypes. By penalizing only men, and not women, it perpetuated the subordination of women and denied them sexual autonomy, agency, dignity and privacy in a matrimonial relationship.

The notion of “suicide” was also cultivated by the Supreme court, as opposed to the society’s perception of suicide and it’s innate immoral character. In P. Rathinam v Union of India⁴¹, the Supreme Court held that, just as the freedom of speech under Article 19 gives right to speak and also the right to not speak, similarly Article 21 that endows the right to live includes the “right to not live”. ⁴²

Exercise of Judicial review and Judicial Activism by the Apex Court, along with wider interpretation of constitutional provisions, by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in its exercise of Judicial activism has expanded and relaxed the principle of ‘locus standi’, with the inception of Public Interest Litigation and the Epistolary Jurisdiction. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration⁴³ where the petitioner via a letter approached the judge, upholds the very ideals of the constitution, justice being accessible to the common man.

PIL, i.e. Public Interest Litigation, initiated by Justice PN Bhagwati, proved to be a tool for the development of have-nots. Ours is therefore not a ‘Bourgeoisie constitution’, but that for the welfare of the common citizens of our nation.

The most transformative provision of our Indian Constitution is Article 21 i.e. Right to Life and Personal Liberty.⁴⁴ A myriad of rights not hitherto foreseen have been included in it’s ambit. In AK Gopalan v State of Madras⁴⁵, there was a limited narrow interpretation of Article 21. However, it broadened in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India⁴⁶, where the Supreme Court held the concept of Procedure established by law, to be just, fair and reasonable. Post the Puttaswamy judgement, Right to Privacy is now a part of Article 21.⁴⁷ Right to die with dignity and passive euthanasia came to be legalised, through the Common Cause case.⁴⁸ The Right to Food was recognised in PUCL vs. Union of India⁴⁹, while the Right to Clean environment was embedded in Article 21 through MC Mehta v Union of India⁵⁰. Recently in Ranjit Singh v Union of India⁵¹, the Fundamental Right against adverse effects of climate change was recognised. Time can only prove how far these rights shall be implemented, in practice. Several other rights are included in its scope, a litmus test exemplifying the dynamic character and successful operation of our Constitution.

The Bhanwari Devi case, where the Dalit woman employee was brutally attacked and gang raped, later suffering by inaction of police, had subsequently led to an infamous and protested judgement by the Rajasthan High Court. This paved the way for the Supreme Court to act in the interest of justice. Abiding and using the international treaties, the Supreme Court established guidelines in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan⁵² to address sexual harassment of women at workplace.

VI. Protection of democracy and institutional accountability by the supreme court

In the words of the 50th CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, “Democracies thrive when institutions thrive. Democracies fail when institutions fail.” These institutions of democracy have undergone significant changes. State of UP v Lalta Prasad⁵³ encouraged fiscal federalism. Now we have shifted from Competitive Federalism to Cooperative Federalism. This clearly has ensured the smooth functioning of democracy and the spirit of parliamentary government.

A series of recent Supreme Court judgments have significantly reaffirmed constitutional protections, the rule of law, and the accountability of State action. These rulings demonstrate the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding civil liberties, ensuring due process, and curbing misuse of executive power.

In a major development, the Court issued guidelines to prevent the misuse of demolitions—commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice.” In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures⁵⁴, the Court condemned the practice of demolishing homes of individuals merely accused or convicted of crimes. It held that such actions by State authorities are unlawful and violate both the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court underscored that only the judiciary has the authority to determine guilt, and executive overreach of this nature undermines fundamental rights and due process.

In Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) ⁵⁵the Court declared the arrest and detention of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act illegal. The Court found that the remand order was passed without supplying the remand application or the grounds for arrest to the accused or his counsel, violating procedural safeguards. The ruling reaffirmed that arrest procedures must comply strictly with legal standards laid down in prior decisions, notably Pankaj Bansal, thereby protecting the accused’s right to a fair hearing.

In Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement ⁵⁶the Supreme Court granted bail to the former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister in both CBI and ED cases relating to the alleged Delhi liquor scam. The Court expressed concern over the delay in trial commencement, noting that with nearly 500 witnesses and an enormous volume of documentary evidence, there was no foreseeable conclusion to the trial. The Court ruled that prolonged detention without timely trial violates Article 21, which guarantees the right to personal liberty, and that such incarceration cannot be justified indefinitely in the name of justice.

In the Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh⁵⁷, a Constitution Bench clarified the legal consequences of ministerial speech. It held that if a minister’s statement causes State officers to act or omit actions that result in harm to citizens, such speech could give rise to a constitutional tort. This decision strengthens the framework for holding public officials accountable for their words and the impact they may have on the functioning of the State.

Lastly, in a landmark electoral reform judgment, the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India⁵⁸ struck down the electoral bonds scheme. The Court held that anonymous political donations violate the citizen’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a), as voters have a fundamental right to know the sources of political funding to make informed choices. Upholding electoral transparency, the Court emphasized that such information is essential to the democratic process and to safeguarding the integrity of elections.

Collectively, these judgments mark a strong reaffirmation of constitutional principles, especially regarding personal liberty, transparency, accountability, and the limits of State power. The Supreme Court has reinforced its role as the guardian of fundamental rights, sending a clear message that neither procedural violations nor executive excesses will be tolerated in a democratic society governed by the Constitution.

VII. Conclusion

Nonetheless, there is still a long way ahead. While the Supreme Court of India has played a monumental role in shaping and upholding constitutional values over the past 75 years, its journey has not been without shortcomings. Despite its proactive stance in several landmark rulings, the Court has, at times, lagged in responding swiftly and decisively to pressing constitutional and human rights violations. Delays in delivering judgments in cases with wide public significance—such as electoral disqualifications, hate speech, and custodial violence—have raised concerns about judicial inertia and selective urgency.

The Court’s silence or limited engagement in some politically sensitive matters has led to allegations of institutional compromise and deference to majoritarian power. Wide inequalities and disparities need to be addressed, ensuring equality for the weak and the meek. For instance, the Supreme Court’s decision in Electoral Bonds case⁵⁹ was truly salutary. However, the politicians and parties are yet not held accountable. The court failed to act earlier when the scheme was actively undermining transparency in political funding. Similarly, in matters like mob lynchings, hate crimes, and custodial deaths, the lack of consistent judicial intervention has allowed a culture of impunity to grow.

Furthermore, access to justice remains unequal. For the poor and marginalized, justice is often delayed, denied, or rendered inaccessible due to procedural barriers and an overburdened judiciary. Though Public Interest Litigations once served as a beacon for social justice, recent misuse and judicial pushback have diluted their original intent.

Ultimately, while the Supreme Court stands as a pillar of constitutional democracy, it must introspect and recommit itself to timely justice, institutional independence, and protection of the most vulnerable—lest the Constitution be symbolically upheld but substantively ignored.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a student at HILSR, School of Law, Jamia Hamdard University, India.

2. ^nd Amendment Act, 1976 ↩

3. Preamble, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

4. Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

5. Vineeth Krishna, ‘November 1948: Ambedkar presents Draft Constitution’, (Centre for Law and Policy Research, 7 November 2020) https://clpr.org.in/blog/november-1948-ambedkar-presents-draft-constitution- ↩

6. Exploring the nexus of law and politics in contemporary society, https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/exploring-the-nexus-of-law-and-politics-in-contemporary-society ↩

7. Mr. Nehru’s message, The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Jawaharlal-Nehrus-message-to-India-in-Independence-Day-issue-of-the-Hindu/article60307731.ece/amp/ ↩

8. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v. The State of Kerala & Ors (2018) ↩

9. Constitutional Identity, Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn (2016) ↩

10. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Corner Stone of a Nation, p. 50 ↩

11. Article 368, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

12. th Amendment Act, 1978 ↩

13. st Amendment Act,1988 ↩

14. rd-74th Amendment Act, 1992 ↩

15. th Amendment Act, 2002 ↩

16. Article 21A, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A68E590D97132A0CD4ADDC1FF6DB7DB6/S0003055400041964a.pdf/divisions_of_opinion_among_justices_of_the_u_s_supreme_court_19391941.pdf ↩

18. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 1951 ↩

19. State of Punjab v Davinder pal, 2024 ↩

20. R.C Cooper v Union of India, 1970 ↩

21. People’s Union of Democratic Rights, 1982 ↩

22. Lily Thomas v Union of India, 2013 ↩

23. SR Bommai v Union of India, 1994 ↩

24. M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 ↩

25. Article 25, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

26. Article 26, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

27. The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmidhar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 ↩

28. ibid ↩

29. National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, 2014 ↩

30. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, 2018 ↩

31. Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, 2018 ↩

32. Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 377 ↩

33. Sana Alvi, “Human Crimes Against Wildlife: In the context of Bestiality and Sodomy” https://www.juscorpus.com/human-crimes-against-wildlife-in-the-context-of-bestiality-and-sodomy/ ↩

34. Joseph Shine v Union of India 2018 ↩

35. Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

36. Article 15, Constituion of India, 1950 ↩

37. Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

38. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v State of Bombay 1954 ↩

39. Soumithri v Revathi 1985 ↩

40. Supra note 35 ↩

41. P. Rathinam v Union of India, 1994 ↩

42. ibid ↩

43. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration 1978 ↩

44. Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950 ↩

45. AK Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 ↩

46. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978 ↩

47. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy and Anr v Union Of India and Ors 2018 ↩

48. Common Cause v Union of India 2018 ↩

49. PUCL v Union of India 1997 ↩

50. MC Mehta v Union of India 1987 ↩

51. M.K. Ranjit Singh v Union of India 2024 ↩

52. Vishakha v State of Rajasthan 1997 ↩

53. State of UP v Lalta Prasad 2007 ↩

54. In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures 2024 ↩

55. Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) , 2024 ↩

56. Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 ↩

57. Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 ↩

58. Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India, 2024 ↩

59. Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India 2024 ↩