Constitution of India: Landmark Cases and Evolution of Constitutional Principle
P. Rama Nath Aiyer: Concise Law Dictionary defines as “Constitution is the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state or body politic is constituted and governed; it is the action of constituting or establishing.
INTRODUCTION
The Constitution is a set of rules and regulations that govern a country and also restrict the power of government and state. It works as a framework for providing the right duties and protection for citizens. The Constitution has been defined from various perspectives.
P. Rama Nath Aiyer: Concise Law Dictionary defines as “Constitution is the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state or body politic is constituted and governed; it is the action of constituting or establishing.”[1]
Black’s Law Dictionary defines Constitution as “A Constitution is a charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed”.[2]
In Minerva mills v Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 stated that “People of the Country, the organs of the Government, Legislature, executive and judiciary are all bound by the Constitution which is the paramount law of the land and nobody is above or beyond the Constitution”[3].
The Constitution of India is also known as Law of Land because all laws must be in consonance with the constitution laid in Article 13 of Constitution of India, which grants fundamental rights, it is doctrine of basic structure, it defines the power of government and state. The Constitution of India was completed in 2year, 11months and 18days by the Constituent Assembly. The Judiciary also plays an important role as guardian of the Constitution because it ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land by the interpretation and enforcement of law. When a Constitution adapts to modern times through judicial interpretation without formally rewriting the text, it is called a "Living Constitution" or "Dynamic Interpretation" by Constitutional interpretation which interpret the old law to apply in modern time which not change the law but it means that how we understand them and constitutional Amendment which mean adding or changing to particular section by Article by Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution.
Constitutional interpretation as a tool of the evolution of the Constitution and Fundamental Right
Constitutional interpretation means deciding what old law means in modern times and is considered a tool of the Constitution’s evolution because judges do not change the words of the Constitution. They explain and interpret the existing provisions so that they can be applied to new situations and modern times. The judge interprets old law into new law in many cases by different interpretations such as living, structural, liberal and transformative.
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[4], the court was concerned with Article 21 and scope of epreventive detention. This case established a narrow and literal interpretation of Article 21, which states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."[5]. It established that it follows ‘procedure established by law’ which means any procedure established by the legislature rather than “due process of law.”
In Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala[6], the court discussed structured interpretation, which established concerns about the parliament’s power limits to amend the Constitution. This is a landmark judgement that established the importance of the basic structure doctrine, which protects fundamental rights from being amended. The judgement of this case states that Parliament has the power to amend under Article 368 to amend the constitution, including fundamental rights but Parliament cannot amend its basic structure.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[7], the court interpreted the living Constitution as approaching, which stated that the state established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. It also established that the right to privacy protects human dignity, individual privacy, and ensures personal decision and autonomy.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[8], the court transformed the understanding of equality and liberty in India and the judgment promoted the idea of transformative constitutionalism, which means that the Constitution should help bring about social change and remove discrimination and injustice, rather than simply maintain existing social conditions.
This is one of the strongest examples of transformative constitutionalism, where the Constitution is used as a tool to create a more inclusive and egalitarian society. In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India [9] a landmark case known as the “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21 is discussed. This case discusses a broad perspective of personal liberty under Articles 21 which is linked to articles 14 and 19. It held that any procedure established by law should be fair, just and reasonable under Article 21. Under Article 21, it includes those rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as the right to travel, the right to sleep, and the right to personal liberty. The judgment also strengthened the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The Court held that a person should be given a fair opportunity to present their case to safeguard against arbitrary action.
Evolution of Judicial Review and constitutional Supremacy
Judicial review is the power of the court to examine the legislature and executive to determine whether their laws are constitutional. Judicial review ensures that the laws and policies made by the legislature and executive do not violate or are contrary to the Constitution. Judicial review ensures constitutional supremacy which means that the Constitution is highest law and policy should be based on constitutional supremacy. There is a conflict over parliamentary supremacy v. judiciary supremacy whether the parliament has more power to amend the constitution or whether the judiciary has power to protect the law, which has been discussed in various cases.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India [10] the court established that Parliament can amend the constitution, including fundamental rights by which there was the first amendment act of 1951 which establishes the early interpretation of Article 368, which makes a distinction between ordinary legislative power and the parliament power to amend the Constitution. In that case the validity of the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act 1951, especially the inclusion of Articles 31-A and 31-B, was challenged in a petition under Article 32. The Court held that under Article 13(2) defined “Law” gives power to ordinary law passed by parliament but it cannot challenge on ground that it violated fundamental right. These cases support the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy that it has power to amend the Constitution. However, there are more cases which held that basic structure cannot be amended.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [11] the court held that Parliamentary has power to amend the fundamental right but it also favoured to parliamentary supremacy but in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab[12], the Supreme Court by a majority of 6:5 dissented from Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh and held that the fundamental right were outside the amendatory process, if the amendment took away or abridged any fundamentals right. In that case held that parliament has lacked power to amend fundamental rights. It established that Parliament has power to amend the Constitution but not to the Fundamental rights.
In Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Punjab[13], Supreme Court limits the power of Parliament. It is a landmark judgement which established the basic structure which limits the power of parliament to amend the Constitutional basic structure and protect the fundamental rights. The court held that Parliament can amend the fundamental right but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The court cannot specify the list of basic structure of the Constitution but it said that basic structure include Secularism, rule of law, judicial review etc. In this case held that 24th Amendment is valid and that by virtue of article 368, as amended by the 24th Amendment, Parliament has power to amend any or all the provision of the Constitution including those relating to the fundamental right. However, seven of the judge held that power of amendment under Article 368 is subject to certain implied and inherent limitations, and that in the exercise of amending power Parliament cannot change the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
Constitutionalism Morality v. Transformative Interpretation
Constitutional morality focuses on principles of the Constitution, such as justice, equality, and freedom. Constitutionalism recognizes the need for a government with power; it envisages checks and balances and the power of the legislature and executive. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) [14] the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations and emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over societal morality.The judgment reinforced principles of equality, dignity, and personal autonomy. In Indian young lawyer association v. State of Kerala [15] the case of exclusion of women from Sabarimala temple during menstruating age violates the right to equality. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is based on values such as equality, dignity, liberty, and justice. These values form the idea of constitutional morality, which means that all laws, customs, and practices must follow the principles of the Constitution. A religious practice cannot continue if it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There is conflict between fundamental rights and religion. The Court also adopted a transformative interpretation of the Constitution. The court by 4:1 majority held that it violated the right to equality Article 14 and 15 and freedom of religion Article 25. Constitutional rights should be interpreted in a way that removes discrimination and protects the dignity of all individuals.
Conclusion
The Constitution of India is a living document that has evolved through both constitutional amendments and judicial interpretation. Landmark judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, Puttaswamy, and Navtej Singh Johar have expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights, strengthened judicial review, protected the basic structure of the Constitution, and promoted values of equality, liberty, dignity, and justice. Even today, issues such as digital privacy, artificial intelligence, and freedom of expression continue to shape constitutional interpretation. The development of judicial review has also reinforced the idea of constitutional supremacy. The Basic Structure Doctrine emerged as an important safeguard, ensuring that essential features such as democracy, secularism, rule of law, judicial review, and Fundamental Rights cannot be destroyed even by a constitutional amendment. At the same time, the concepts of constitutional morality and transformative constitutionalism have helped the Constitution become an instrument of social change.
Thus, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and responsive to the needs of a changing society while preserving its core principles. Through constitutional interpretation, judicial review, and the protection of Fundamental Rights, the Constitution continues to guide the nation towards justice, equality, and social transformation
[1] P. Ramanath Aiyer: Concise Law Dictionary, 8th ed.(copyright 2024) defines as “Constitution is the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state or body politic is constituted and governed; it is the action of constituting or establishing.”
[2] Bryan A. Garner: Black’s law dictionary, 12th ed,(copyright 2026) defines Constitution as “A Constitution is a charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed”
[3] Minerva Mills v Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
[4] A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
[5] Article 21 of Constitution of India
[6] Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
[7] Justice K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
[8] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4321
[9] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC597
[10] Shankari Prasad v. Union of India 1951 AIR 458
[11] Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1965 AIR 845
[12] Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 1967 SCR (2) 762
[13] Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Punjab (1978) 4 SCC 225
[14] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India AIR (2018) SC 4321
[15] Indian young lawyer association v. State of Kerala (2019) 11 SC 1