The Role Of The Judiciary In Constitutional Interpretation
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 3
- 1 min read
Shruti Choudhary, KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar
ABSTRACT
The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution, ensuring it adapts with the shifting societal, political and legal landscapes, all while preserving its core tenets. This paper delves into the diverse interpretive strategies employed by the Indian judiciary, with a focus on originalism, textualism and purposive interpretation. Originalism is rooted in the framers' intent, emphasizing the need for constitutional consistency, whereas textualism adheres to the literal wording of the Constitution. In contrast, purposive interpretation aims to fulfil the broader goals and principles embedded in the Constitution, offering flexibility in judicial rulings. Through an examination of landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2 the paper highlights how these different interpretive methods have influenced the evolution of constitutional law in India. This paper also explores the ongoing debate between judicial activism and restraint, shedding light on how the judiciary’s interpretive approaches affect its interactions with the executive and legislative branches. While textual and originalist interpretations offer the judiciary a foundation of stability and predictability, purposive interpretation has provided the necessary flexibility to keep the Constitution a living, breathing document, capable of addressing modern societal needs. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these interpretive strategies for future constitutional jurisprudence in India.
