The normal rules applicable to interpretation of statutes are equally valid in the field of constitutional interpretation. The interpretation clause-Article 367-inter alia clarifies that the Genera l Clauses Act shall apply to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of India. But the Constitution is the fundamental and the Supreme law which creates the Legislature and under which all the laws of the land are to be enacted and draw their legitimacy. Under what is called the Doctrine of Literal Interpretation, therefore the Constitution has to be interpreted liberally and not in a narrow sense. (Goodyear India v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 781.) Also, besides the general rules, there are some special rules for interpretation of the Constitution.
Every provision of the Constitution has to be so construed as to give meaning and relevance to every word used. It has been held by the Supreme Court that unless otherwise indicated, every word is supposed to have been used in its normal and ordinary connotation and should be given the plain common sense meaning. (Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225).
The purpose of the interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the framers. But, this has to be ascertained from the actual words used in the text. If the language of a constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, things like the spirit of the Constitution or the views of the Constitution makers expressed in the Constituent Assembly debates are irrelevant in interpretation. If, however, the vagueness of the language admits of more than one interpretation these can be considered for purposes of clarification. (Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128; Gopalan v.State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27).
The Constitution must be read as a whole with due weight given to every part. Where two provisions appear to be in conflict, under the Principle of Harmonious Construction, the meaning which gives effect to both the provisions and ensures their smooth and harmonious operation should be accepted. (See Venkataramana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255, State of Madras v. Champakam, (1951) S C R 5257, Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 88).
According to the Doctrine of Prospective overruling adopted by our Supreme Court in the Golak Nath Case, an interpretation given by the court and the law declared by it may not be given retroactive operation i.e. the validity of past acts may not be affected. (Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643).
Every provision of the Constitution has to be so construed as to give meaning and relevance to every word used. It has been held by the Supreme Court that unless otherwise indicated, every word is supposed to have been used in its normal and ordinary connotation and should be given the plain common sense meaning. (Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225).
The purpose of the interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the framers. But, this has to be ascertained from the actual words used in the text. If the language of a constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, things like the spirit of the Constitution or the views of the Constitution makers expressed in the Constituent Assembly debates are irrelevant in interpretation. If, however, the vagueness of the language admits of more than one interpretation these can be considered for purposes of clarification. (Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128; Gopalan v.State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27).
The Constitution must be read as a whole with due weight given to every part. Where two provisions appear to be in conflict, under the Principle of Harmonious Construction, the meaning which gives effect to both the provisions and ensures their smooth and harmonious operation should be accepted. (See Venkataramana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255, State of Madras v. Champakam, (1951) S C R 5257, Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 88).
According to the Doctrine of Prospective overruling adopted by our Supreme Court in the Golak Nath Case, an interpretation given by the court and the law declared by it may not be given retroactive operation i.e. the validity of past acts may not be affected. (Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643).
Winchester Cathedral and Notre Dame de Paris. Armour also was decorated, often simply but occasionally elaborately.From the 16th century onwards, ironwork became highly ornate especially Human translation in the Baroque and Rococo periods.
ReplyDelete