Constitutional Law: The Unseen Strings of Power

Unraveling the complexities of India's foundational law: a student's journey through the labyrinth of constitutional interpretation As I delve into the intricacies of Constitutional Law, I find myself pondering over the often-misunderstood phrase 'Constitutional morality'. While it may seem like an abstract concept, it's what makes our Constitution tick - a delicate balance between individual rights and the collective good. In the world of law, nothing is black and white, and the Constitution is no exception. It's a constantly evolving document, influenced by the societal context and the courts that interpret it. The Indian Constitution, as we know, is a long document with 395 Articles and 8 Schedules. But what's often overlooked is the importance of the Seventh Schedule, which divides powers between the Centre and the States. This Schedule is the backbone of our federal structure, ensuring that neither the Centre nor the States have absolute power. However, it's the 42nd Amendment, which inserted Article 368(2), that has significantly limited the power of judicial review in India. But, as the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) showed, the judges found a way to navigate around this limitation, thereby restoring the power of judicial review. The concept of judicial review is a powerful tool that allows the courts to review the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. This is where the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes into play - a principle that requires the government to act in accordance with its promises and obligations. In the context of our Constitution, this means that the government must respect the fundamental rights of citizens, as enshrined in Part III. But, as the Indian experience shows, this is often easier said than done. In the world of literature and philosophy, the concept of the "absurd" is often associated with the works of Albert Camus and Franz Kafka. Similarly, in the realm of Constitutional Law, the absurd can manifest in the form of conflicting constitutional provisions or court judgments that seem to defy logic. Take, for instance, the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), where the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for being unconstitutional, but upheld other provisions that were similarly contentious. It's in these moments of absurdity that we are reminded of the importance of critical thinking and nuanced interpretation. In the words of the Hon'ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018), "The Constitution is not a document of fixed meaning, but a living and breathing instrument, which continues to evolve with the passage of time and the changing needs of the society." Indeed, it's this capacity to adapt and evolve that makes our Constitution a beacon of hope for a rapidly changing India.