The Constitution reflects the vision of its founders to give India a collective future based on the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Constitution mandates a more just and inclusive society, where every citizen has the opportunity to thrive. It envisages that the values embedded in its provisions are not just aspirations but lived realities. Any interpretation of the Constitution must be reflective of the blueprint laid down by its founders.
The Constitution is – as Granville Austin put it— a “social document” and a “modernizing force”, with its provisions embodying “humanitarian sentiments”
The interpretation of the Constitution is not static. It has evolved with time to give recognition to a broader spectrum of rights to the citizens, as well as to impose additional safeguards against excesses of the State or even private entities, as the case may be. Over the last seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized new rights such as the right to education, the right to privacy, and the right against the adverse impact of climate change, among others.
These rights, though not explicitly mentioned in the original text, have been interpreted as inherent to the broader principle of the right to life which the Constitution enshrines. The Constitution must serve as a robust framework for safeguarding the rights of citizens and maintaining the delicate balance between authority and individual freedom.
The Constitution recognizes the dignity and individual autonomy inherent in all citizens and their right to life and personal liberty. Liberty and autonomy advance the cause of human dignity. Individual autonomy is the ability to make decisions on matters that impact one’s life. When individuals are granted the freedom to make choices about their own lives, they are empowered to take control of their destinies, and express their identities, in the “pursuit of happiness” without undue interference.
This freedom fosters a sense of self-worth and respect, thereby recognizing individual dignity. By safeguarding these principles, we ensure that the intrinsic worth of every human being is recognized and upheld. The right to life cannot be restricted except through a law which is “substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable”.
Our interpretation of the Constitution must fill the silences in its text. The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated every situation that might arise in the future. They also intentionally left certain decisions to the discretion of future generations. However, the choices we make today must align with the broader constitutional framework and values.
In filling the gaps, whenever they arise, our interpretation must enhance the foundational values of the Constitution such as equality, dignity, liberty, federalism and institutional accountability. Our interpretation must adhere to the postulate that “civil and political rights and socio-economic rights do not exist in a state of antagonism.” Our analysis must be based on a holistic reading of the provisions of the Constitution.
The Constitution envisages that courts act as institutions which discharge the responsibility of protecting constitutionally entrenched rights. Courts are neutral institutions, whose primary function is to apply the law fairly and consistently. Transparency in processes also enhances public confidence in the system. In their role as neutral institutions, courts also act as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring that their actions conform to constitutional and legal standards.
The Constitution mandates that laws enacted in the colonial era should align with its provisions. Constitutional interpretation emphasizes the “need to reverse the philosophy of the colonial regime, which was founded on the subordination of the individual to the state”. The “assumptions which lay at the foundation of colonial rule have undergone a fundamental transformation for a nation of individuals governed by the Constitution”.
By recognizing the injustices in the colonial and pre-colonial era, “we can certainly set the course for the future”. “In the transformation of society” against colonial and pre-colonial ideology, the Constitution “seeks to assure the values of a just, humane and compassionate existence to all her citizens”.
Criminal laws of the colonial era continue to impact the postcolonial world. As a scholar noted, “while the pre-determined and codified nature of the diverse criminal justice rules provided the moral superiority and political legitimacy to colonial rule, the Imperial power was safeguarded by their coercive content, particularly in procedural matters.”
Criminal laws in modern times thus, as “the strongest expression of the State’s power” must “ensure that they do not deny equality before the law and the equal protection of laws”. Criminal laws must not endorse colonial or pre-colonial philosophy.
In a post-constitutional society, “the law must take affirmative steps to achieve equal protection of law to all its citizens”. Any discussion on the Constitution must therefore take a conscious view of the lived realities of citizens. It requires evaluating how constitutional provisions translate into meaningful outcomes in their lives. We must discuss this aspect of the Indian Constitution further, before we examine the impugned provisions.
Reference
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)