The constitution is an organic instrument. It is the fundamental law.

The
general rule adopted for construing a written constitution is the same as for construing
any other statute. The constitution should be interpreted so as to give effect to all its
parts.
In democratic countries the judiciary is given a place of great significance.
The courts perform the key role of expounding the provisions of the Constitution. The
courts act as the supreme interpreter, protector and guardian of the supremacy of the
Constitution. The judiciary has to perform an important role in the interpretation and
enforcement of human rights inscribed in the fundamental law of the country.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider what should be the approach of the judiciary in
the matter of Constitutional Interpretation. The judiciary has to devise a pragmatic
wisdom to adopt a creative and purposive approach in the interpretation of various
rights embodied in the Constitution. The task of interpreting the constitution is a
highly creative judicial function which must be in tune with the constitutional
philosophy. A democratic society lives and swears by certain values such as
individual liberty, human dignity; rule of law, constitutionalism etc. and it is the duty
of the judiciary to so interpret the constitution and the law as to constantly inculcate
these values on which democracy thrives. The predominant positivist approach of
interpretation followed by the Indian Judiciary emanates from the basic traditional
theory that a judge does not create law but merely declares the law.

There are basically three types of interpretation of the constitution.

1. Historical interpretation
Ambiguities and uncertainties while interpreting the constitutional provisions
can be clarified by referring to earlier interpretative decisions.
2. Contemporary interpretation
The Constitution must be interpreted in the light of the present scenario. The
situation and circumstances prevalent today must be considered.
3. Harmonious Construction
It is a cardinal rule of construction that when there are in a statute two
provisions which are in such conflict with each other, that both of them cannot stand
together, they should possibly be so interpreted that effect can be given to both. And
that a construction which renders either of them in operative and useless should not be
adopted except in the last resort.

General rules of interpretation of the Constitution

1. If the words are clear and unambiguous, they must be given full effect.
2. The constitution must be read as a whole.
3. Principles of Harmonious construction must be applied.
4. The constitution must be interpreted in a broad and liberalsense.
5. The court has to infer the spirit of the constitution from the language.
6. Internal and External aids may be used while interpreting.
7. The Constitution prevails over other statutes.

Principles of Constitutional Interpretation

The following principles have frequently been discussed by the courts while
interpreting the Constitution:

1. Principle of colourable legislation

2. Principle of pith and substance
3. Principle of eclipse
4. Principle of severeability
5. Principle of territorial nexus
6. Principle of implied powers
7. Principle of incidental or ancillary powers
Table of Cases
1. Re Kerala Education Bill, 1959 1 SCR 995
2. Qureshi v State of Bihar, 1958 AIR 731
3. Bhatia International v Bulk trading SA, (2003) 5 SCC (Jour) 22
4. Re Berubari, AIR 1960 SC 845
5. Keshavananda Bharathi’s case, AIR 1973 SC 1461
6. KC Gajapati v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375
7. State of Bihar vs. Maharaja Kameshwar Singh & ors, 1955 SCR 889
8. Profulla Kumar vs. Bank of Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60
9. State of Bombay vs. FN Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318
10. Bhikhaji v. State of M.P, AIR 1955 S.C. 781
11. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay, [1961] S.C.R. 288
12. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
13. HR Banthia v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1453
14. State of Bombay v. RMDC, AIR 1957 SC 699
15. Tata Iron & Steel Company vs. Bihar State, AIR 1958 SC 482
16. Navinchandra Mafatlal v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City,
AIR 1955 SC 58