It explains all the important principles used in analyzing the constitution and interpreting it.

1. ANALYZING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULES OF
INTERPRETATION
“Constitution is not a mere lawyers document, it is a vehicle of life and its
spirit is always the spirit of age”- BR Ambedkar
Presented by:-
Anushka Singh
BBA-LLB (7th Semester)
2018006764
“Interpretation of laws and it's right application in its true spirit is the bedrock
of any judicial mechanism and a legal system- Henrietta Newton Martin

2. ABSTRACT
The superstructure of judicial reasoning is built on the foundation of rules of interpretation. To
arrive at compelling choices, reasoned judgments frequently require the logical backing of certain
well-established rules usually adopted by judges. The Constitution of India is the ultimate source
of law, and it accords due respect to legislation, case law, and customary law that are compatible
with its dispensations.
The wording of the constitution are very rigid and difficult to modify, but the laws made by the
legislature are extremely dynamic and represent the current status of the people.
To guarantee that the new laws are consistent with the constitution's core framework, the
constitution must be construed broadly and liberally, giving effect to all of its components, and
the assumption must be that the framers did not intend any conflict or repugnancy.
Each phrase in the Constitution is presented fairly and is difficult to alter. However, today's
legislatures pass laws that are dynamic and reflect the present condition of the Constitution.
The author's goal in this essay is to discuss the most important principles of constitutional
interpretation and the subtleties involved in applying these rules to interpret constitutional
provisions.

3. INTRODUCTION
MEANING OF
INTERPRETATION
PROMINENT
RULES OF
INTERPRETATION
IMPORTANCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION
PRINCIPLES OF
CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION
PRINCIPLE OF
PITH AND
SUBSTANCE
PRINCIPLE OF
ECLIPSE
PRINCIPLE OF
SEVERABILITY
PRINCIPLE OF
COLOURABLE
LEGISLATION
PREAMBLE AS A
SOURCE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSION
TABLE OF CONTENT

4. There seems to be no single "correct" way to understand a document. Two people may read a political item in the
newspaper and interpret it differently based on their unique perspectives, experiences, and so on. Similarly,
different judges on the Court have interpreted the Constitution's provisions differently.
The first phase where it was interpreted literally
the second phase where the Courts began to scrutinize all possible methods of
interpretation as a result of which the basic structure doctrine came into existence
the third phase can be described as phase of eclecticism where the decisions by the
Apex Court were based on fairness
the fourth phase is the current one where the court has begun to interpret the
provision in a transformative manner
PHASES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

5. Constitutions are broadly worded documents and have been drafted in as general terms as possible. To
apply them to particular legal and factual circumstances, rules of constitutional interpretation becomes
necessary.
Constitutions were drafted decades and sometimes centuries earlier. Such a document may be ill-
equipped at times to answer certain specific questions which the drafters ratifying the document
could not have easily foreseen. It, therefore, becomes important for the courts to propound
theories of constitutional interpretation that makes the document a “living constitution” – one
that caters to the society of today and tomorrow. Constitutions must evolve and adapt to new
challenges and circumstances without being formally amended.
It is difficult to identify the ‘Spirit of the Constitution’ by reading a single provision in the
document. Rules of Constitutional Interpretation helps identify the overall spirit of the text.
Constitutional Interpretation is crucial in identifying ‘Constitutional Symbolism’. A written
Constitution is in many senses a symbolic document and to identify its symbolism is an
important legal venture. It helps address philosophical questions of legal importance
which reaffirms constitutional values and helps build a nation’s own constitutional
identity.
IMPORTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

6. NORMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
If the words are unmistakable and clear, they must be given their full
impact.
The entire constitution must be read.
Harmonious building principles must be followed.
The Constitution must be understood literally and broadly.
The court must deduce the Constitution's spirit from the text.
When interpreting, both internal and external assistance may be
employed.
The Constitution takes precedence over all other laws.

7. It's worth noting that Article 367(1) of the constitution endorses general principles of
interpretation, stating that "unless the context otherwise requires," the General Clauses Act of
1897 "shall apply for the interpretation of this constitution as it does for the interpretation of a
legislative act.” Courts have administrated in cases such as Seth Jugmendar Das And Ors. v/s State,
that “not only the general definitions given in General Clauses Act, but also the general rules of
construction given therein are applicable to the constitution”.

8. The following principles have frequently
been discussed by the courts while
interpreting the Constitution :-
1. Principle of pith and substance
2. Principle of eclipse
3. Principle of colourable legislation
4. Principle of Severability

9. PRINCIPLE
OF
PITH AND SUBSTANCE

10. First and foremost, beginning with the literal meaning of the terms “Pith”
and “Substance”
Pith: “True character” or “essence of something”
Substance: “sine qua non elements of something” or “indispensable part
of something”
The doctrine places emphasis on the fact that it is the real subject
matter which is to be challenged and not its incidental effects on
another field. The doctrine is majorly used to determine the legislative
competency with reference to a particular enactment; by observing the
substance of that enactment. Now, if the substance of the enactment is
within the subject matter; which has been delegated to the legislature
then the enactment would be declared valid.
The inception of this doctrine was marked by the Canadian
case of Cushing v. Dupuy (1880 UKPC 22)

11. The Doctrine of Pith and Substance relates to Article 246 that deals with the three
lists enumerated in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
List I– Union List (Parliamentary Legislation)
List II– State List (State Legislation)
List III– Concurrent List (Parliament and State Legislation)
It is used when there is a question on the competence of the legislature on making a
particular enactment under the three lists. The court for that matter must look into
the substance of the enactment. If the court finds that the law formulated is very
much within the substance of the matter assigned to the framers then the statute is
deemed completely valid or as the case may be.
In short, this doctrine means that if an enactment substantially falls within the
powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the Legislature which enacted
it, it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it incidentally encroaches on
matters assigned to another Legislature.

12. Salient features of the Doctrine of
Pith and Substance are as given
below:
• It becomes applicable in circumstances when
the subject matter of one list is in conflict
with the subject matter of another list.
• The reason behind its adoption is to avoid
any limitation on the powers of
legislatures by declaring every other
enactment invalid basis that it encroaches
upon another law.
• It is meant to determine the true nature and
character of the subject and decide under
which head of the list it falls.
• The Doctrine provides a degree of flexibility
on the powers of the state to make a law
that involves the subject of Union List.

13. Landmark Judgements
• Mt. Atiqa Begam and Anr. v. Abdul Maghni Khan And Ors. AIR 1940 All 272
• State of Bombay and another v. F.N Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318
• Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Khulna (1947) 49 BOMLR 568
• Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1961 AIR 1787
• The State of Rajasthan vs Shri G. Chawla and Dr. Pohumal,1959 AIR 544
State of Bombay and another v. F.N Balsara
This case acquires quite a lot of importance as it was the first case which upheld the doctrine
of Pith and Substance in India. The court gave out the judgment stating that the act was in
its Pith and Substance and rightfully fell under the State list even though such an act was
said to have a bearing on the import of liquor in the state.

15. The literal meaning of “eclipse” refers to the occurrence when one
object overshadows another.
In reference to Constitutional law, the doctrine of eclipse is known to
be applied in cases in which an act or law has the tendency to violate the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
In that scenario, the fundamental rights will overshadow the other act
or law and make it unenforceable. The unenforceability of the
overshadowed act or law is not void ab initio or null meaning they can
be reinforced again if the earlier restrictions as posed by the
Fundamental rights are taken away.
As a result of its operation, “an existing law inconsistent with a
fundamental right, though it becomes inoperative from the date of

16. Salient features of this doctrine are as
follow:
• The doctrine of eclipse is applicable only in pre-
constitutional laws cases that have now become
operational with the commencement of the
Constitution.
• The doctrine is not applicable to post-
constitutional laws, reason being, they are valid
since their inception and cannot be validated even
by any corresponding amendment.
• The pre-constitutional laws must be in conflict
with FR, then only it is said to be eclipsed by FR.
• The impugned law is inoperative only, for the time
being, hence is not null or void ab initio.
• Any corresponding amendment to the relevant
FR will make the impugned law enforceable again.

17. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which is very meticulously connected to
the Doctrine of Eclipse. Article 13, the power of Judicial Review, falls under the
purview of Fundamental Rights and is a provision to safeguard the same. It
empowers fundamental rights and concerns the laws inconsistent with or in
derogation of the Fundamental Rights. It deals with the extent of inconsistency
in the pre-constitutional laws as well as in post-constitutional laws

18. Landmark judgements
• Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 633.
• A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
• State of Gujarat v Ambica Mills 1974 AIR 1300
• Deep Chand and Mahendra lal Jain 1963 AIR 1019,
• Keshavan Madhava Menon vs The State Of Bombay 1951 AIR 128
• The State Of Bombay And Another vs F.N. Balsara 1951 AIR 318
• Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 AIR 781
• I.C. Golaknath and Ors. versus State of Punjab and Anrs 1967 AIR 1643
• Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225
In the case of FN Balsara, the Court declared Section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act
of 1949 as void because it violated Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. The Court again
held that only the part of the statute that is violative of Part III is inoperative and not the
whole Statute.

19. PRINCIPLE
OF
SEVERABILITY

20. The doctrine of Severability is also known as the Doctrine of Separability. In
simple words severability means “to separate”. The doctrine of Severability
means that if an offending provision can be separated from that which is
constitutional then only that part which is offending is to be declared as void
and not the entire statute. Article 13 of the constitution uses the word ‘to the
extent of such inconsistency be void’ which means that when some provision
of the law is held to be unconstitutional then only the repugnant provisions of
the law in question shall be treated by courts as void and not the whole statute.
In layman language, it is more like a filter, through which Pre-Constitutional
Laws goes through. Any provision of a Law which is inconsistent with
Fundamental Right and its absence would not affect the cardinal functioning
of the Statute; the filter will stop that provision and let the whole Statute pass
through it. If such provision is cardinal to the functioning of the whole
Statute; consequently the Filter will stop the whole Statute all together from
passing off.

22. Comparison of Doctrine
of Severability and
Doctrine of Eclipse
While making a
constitutional
amendment on the
unconstitutional part of a
statute, it is significant to
take into account both
‘doctrine of Severability’
and ‘doctrine of eclipse’.
The latter can be applied
in the case of pre-
constitutional laws which
were valid at the time of
enactment.
State of Gujrat v Ambica
mills, the supreme court
stated that a post
constitutional law which
is inconsistent with the
fundamental rights is not
nullity or non-existent in
all cases and for all
purposes. The ‘doctrine
of eclipse’ cannot be
invoked in the case of a
post Constitution law
whereas; ‘Doctrine of
Severability’ makes the
law void ab initio.

23. Landmark judgements
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury vs the Union of India & Ors 1951 AIR 41
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India 1957 AIR 628
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 AIR 27
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara 1951 AIR 318
Minerva Mills v. Union of India 1980 AIR 1789
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union of India 1983 AIR 130
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others 1992 SCR (1) 686
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
The apex court held that in case of repugnancy to the Constitution, only the
repugnant provision of the impugned Act will be held invalid or void and not the
whole of it. It further observed that every attempt must be made to save as much as
possible of the act. If the oversight or omission of the invalid part will not change
the nature, arrangement, and structure of the object of the legislature, it is
severable. It was further observed that except for S.14 all other sections of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 were valid, and subsequently, S.14 can be severed
from the rest of the Act, the detention of the petitioner was not unlawful or illegal.

24. PRINCIPLE
OF
COLOURABLE
LEGISLATION

25. The doctrine of colourability is the idea that when the legislature wants to do something
that it cannot do within the constraints of the constitution, it colours the law with a
substitute purpose which will still allow it to accomplish its original goal.
The doctrine is based on the maxim“Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per
obliqum” which means what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly.
The doctrine becomes applicable when a legislature seeks to do something in an indirect
manner when it cannot do it directly. Thus, it refers to the competency of the legislature to
enact a particular law. If the impugned legislation falls within the competence of the
legislature, the question of doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly does
not arise. The doctrine is used in the cases to determine questions of competency to enact a
law when a legislature oversteps its conferred power and legislate upon something
indirectly which it can’t do in a direct manner

26. In India Colourable legislation will arise merely
when the legislature has no power to form the law
on the subject matter because it is not included in
the list assigned to it under the respective entries of
seventh scheduled and under Article 246, Or due to
certain limitations, whether the third part of the
constitution or some other power under the
constitution.
Sometimes the legislature makes such law, which
appears to be within its competence but its effect
and essence lie beyond its boundary. Then the law
would be declared as void. In simple words, the
different colour is given to the law (by the
legislature to bring it within its limits) but, it
cannot prevent it from being declared an illegal
law. Such law is called as colourable legislation

27. Limitations
 The doctrine does not extend to Subordinate Legislation, either.
 Colorable law theory does not require any doubt on the part of the legislature about bona
fides or mala fides. The whole theory transforms itself into a single legislature's, question
of ability to pass a particular law.
 If a Legislature has the power to make legislation on a particular subject, it also has the
power to make the law successful.
 The doctrine has no effect where any Constitutional restriction does not fetter the powers
of a legislature.
• When discussed above, the Legislature's transgression of constitutional power may be
proprietary, manifest or actual, but may also be veiled, concealed, and indirect, and the
term "Colorable Legislation" applies only to this latter class of situations

28. Landmark cases
• State of Bihar Vs Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252
• K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo V. The state of Orissa AIR 1953 Ori 185
• K.T. Moopil Nair vs. The state of Kerala 1961 AIR 552
• M.R. Balaji Vs. The state of Mysore 1963 AIR 649
• Janapada Sabha Chhindwara vs Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd 1971 AIR 57
State of Bihar Vs Kameshwar Singh
In this case, the Court applied the concept of Doctrine of Colourable legislation and
declared a law invalid. The law held invalid was Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950. It
ostensibly purported to lay down the principle of compensation, it did not lay down
any such principle and therefore implicitly attempted to deprive the petitioner of
any compensation.

29. The ultimate conclusion that can be deduced is that no fixed principle of Interpretation can
serve as a singular rule for constitutional adjudication. At least not in a diverse and
extremely complex society like ours. The growth of any constitution through interpretation
by courts shows how courts have adjudicated and propounded constitutional jurisprudence
with alacrity and due regard for the founding fathers. The principles of interpretation
adopted by the Supreme Courts have changed in these seven decades in order to be consistent
with the political connotations and changed public policy.
This is probably why the constitution is still alive and continues to serve as a weapon against
state arbitrariness, unlawful exercise of power, and violation of fundamental rights of the
citizens.
CONCLUSION