Interpretative Methods and Judicial Power

Naik, Yeshwant

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_2

Yeshwant Naik²

333 Accesses

Abstract

Homosexuality is a crime and punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Delhi High Court on July 2, 2009 held Section 377 to be unconstitutional with respect to penetrative sex, i.e., penile-anal sex and penile-oral sex, between consenting adults in private. However, the Supreme Court, through its recent judgment has criminalized homosexual acts by reinstating Section 377. In doing so, it has set aside the Delhi High Court verdict (2009), which conferred equality, liberty and dignity to the LGBTI community. On earlier occasions, the Supreme Court has struck down constitutional amendments; thus, by not striking down Section 377 the Supreme Court has exercised judicial restraint. It has denied fundamental human rights to the LGBTI Community by labelling them the “miniscule minority.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
NAZ Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Judgment dated December 11, 2013).
2.
An introduction to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is provided in Chapter 1. Discussions of Section 377 – including its historical background and the Supreme Court’s judicial restraint – are found in Chapters 4 and 5.
3.
For interpretative methods, see Overy, C., and R.C.A. White, The European Convention on Human Rights, p. 64.
4.
Bhat, I.P., Law and Social Transformation, p. 169.
5.
Iyer, V.R.K., “The Constitution: Our Founding Deed and Our Fighting Creed - Some Thoughts on Their Future First S.K. Memorial Lecture, New Delhi,” pp. 9–13; see also Bhat, I.P., Law and Social Transformation, p. 168.
6.
Courts have referred to conventions on several occasions during the course of their decisions. See, for instance, Carltona Ltd v. Commissioners of Works, (1943) 2 All E.R. 560; Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, (1969) 1 A.C.645; A.G. v. Jonathan Cape Ltd., (1976) Q.B. 752; Adegbenro v. Akintola, (1963) A.C. 614.
7.
Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 1; see also Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, p. 3.
8.
Bhat, I.P., op. cit., p. 169.
9.
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, p. 3.
10.
Ibid., pp. 3–4.
11.
Ibid., p. 4.
12.
Ibid.
13.
Pylee, M.V., Constitutional History of India, p. 24; Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, pp. 3–4.
14.
Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, p. 15.
15.
Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, p. 3.
16.
Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India with Selective Comments, p. 3–4.
17.
Ibid., p. 4.
18.
Ibid., p. 5.
19.
The State has power to legislate on any subject in conformity with the constitutional limitations; see Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) 1 SCC, 109, paragraphs 35–37, 56–64, 106–108.
20.
The ideals of socialism, secularism and democracy are elaborated by the enacting provisions. See also Bhim Singh v. Union of India AIR (1981) SC 234, paragraphs 39, 71–72; State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) AIR SC 490, 531; Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) AIR SC 271.
21.
Inserted by the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976 for “Sovereign Democratic Republic.”
22.
AIR 1960 SC 845.
23.
Ibid.; see also Shelat and Grover, JJ., in Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
24.
Ibid., see Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 30.
25.
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 292,437,599,682 and 1164; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 299, paragraphs 251–252 (Khanna, J.), paragraphs 664, 665 and 691 (Chandrachud, J); paragraphs 555 and 575 (Beg, J.); Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
26.
State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, AIR 2000 SC 1296.
27.
Pandey, J.N., op. cit., p. 22.
28.
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, p. 7.
29.
Pandey, J.N., op. cit., p. 22.
30.
Jain, M.P., op. cit., p. 7.
31.
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. XI, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1949, pp. 839–40.
32.
Pandey, J.N., op.cit., pp. 23–25.
33.
Ibid., p. 24.
34.
Ibid., p. 388.
35.
Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, AIR 1996 SC 1011, para 25.
36.
AIR 1974 SC 1389.
37.
Sharma, G.S., Secularism: Its implications for Law and Life in India, p. 4–5; see also Luthra, V.P., The Concept of the Secular State in India (1964) and Srivastava, D.K. Religious Freedom of India (1982).
38.
Dicey, A.V., Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution, p. 157.
39.
Ibid., p. 144.
40.
Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 18.
41.
In State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241, the Supreme Court held by a majority that it is not truly federal.
42.
Jennings, I.W., Some Characteristics of the Indian Constitution, p. 1.
43.
Wheare, K.C., India’s New Constitution Analyzed, p. 18.
44.
The Indian Constitution can be both unitary as well as federal as per the requirement of time and circumstances. Normally, it is framed to work as a federal system. But in times of war it is designed to work as a unitary system. See Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, p. 13, footnote 2.
45.
Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 18–19.
46.
Jennings, I.W., op. cit., p. 55.
47.
Pandey, J.N., op. cit., p. 27.
48.
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, p. 9.
49.
Ibid., p. 10.
50.
Remedies in the nature of writs Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari.
51.
The Constitution (42^nd Amendment Act, 1976) has introduced the “Fundamental Duties” for citizens; Part IVA (containing article 51A) ins. by the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976, sec.11 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977); Under Article 51A Fundamental duties have been particularly invoked in litigation concerning the environment.
52.
Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 27.
53.
Jain, M.P., op. cit., p. 12.
54.
Justice Dhavan, S.S. High Court Allahabad, “A Historical Survey: The Indian Judicial System,” p. 1. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/event/TheIndianJudicial System_SSDhavan.pdf (accessed on March 6, 2015).
55.
Manusmriti is considered as superior to the Dharma Shastras. After Manusmriti came Dharma Shastras attributed to Brihaspati, (a Hindu god described as being of yellow or golden colour and holding a stick, a lotus and beads) Narada, (a Vedic sage who spreads the name of God Narayana and who plays a prominent role in a number of Hindu texts) Vishnu, (one of the most significant deities in Hinduism) Yajnavalkya (a sage and philosopher of Vedic India. Dharma Shastras is the ‘science of dharma’ and refers to the treatises (shastras) of Hinduism on Dharma. Dharma means something more than law. In classical Hindu thought there was no distinction between religion and law. There are many Dharma Shastras (ca. 100) with different and conflicting points of view.
56.
Sharma, S.D., Administration of Justice in Ancient India, p. 170.
57.
Justice Dhavan, S.S., op. cit., p. 1.
58.
Ibid., p. 1–3; see also Shilwant, Legal and Constitutional History of India, p. 341; Cowell, History of the Constitution of the Courts and Legislative Authorities in India, p. 3; Gledhill, A., The Republic of India, p. 147.
59.
Bashman, A.L., The Wonder that was India, p. 116.
60.
Spellman, J.W., Political Theory of Ancient India, p. 128.
61.
Das, S., Crime and Punishment in Ancient India, p. 14.
62.
Justice Dhavan, S.S., op. cit., p. 7.
63.
Shah, F.M., Tarikh-i-Fakhr-ud-din Mubarak Shah, p. 12.
64.
Briggs, J., Rise of the Muhammendan Power in India, Volume 1, p. 272; Ahmad, M.B., The administration of Justice in Medieval India, p. 272.
65.
Ibid., p. 273.
66.
A Qazi was a Muslim scholar conversant with the prescriptions of the sacred law.
67.
Justice Dhavan, S.S., op. cit., p. 8.
68.
Ibid., Majumdar, R.C., The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Mughal Empire, p. 545.
69.
Majumdar, R.C., op. cit., p. 545.
70.
Emperor of Mughal India.
71.
The Supreme Court of Revenue in British India established at Calcutta by Warren Hastings in 1772. It was reformed in 1780 and 1793 by the British Parliament.
72.
Justice Dhavan, S.S., op. cit., p. 8.
73.
Annual Report of the Supreme Court of India, 2007–2008, p. 39, http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/annaulreport2007-08.pdf (Assessed on May 8, 2015).
74.
Supreme Court at Calcutta was established by way of issuance of Letters Patent on March 26, 1774.
75.
Supreme Court at Madras was established by way of issuance of Letters Patent on December 26, 1800.
76.
Supreme Court of Bombay was established by way of issuance of Letters Patent on December 8, 1823.
77.
Annual Report of the Supreme Court of India, 2007–2008, op. cit.
78.
Ibid., p. 40.
79.
See Majumdar, R.C., The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Mughal Empire, p. 553.
80.
Ibid., p. 553.
81.
Dicey, A.V., Law of the Constitution, p. 175.
82.
Austin, G., The Indian Constitution Cornerstone of Nation, p. 169.
83.
India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328.
84.
Article 130 of the Indian Constitution.
85.
Now “thirty”, vide the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2008 (11 of 2009). Earlier it was “twenty five”, vide the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986 (22 of 1986).
86.
Ins. by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, Sec. 2 (w.e.f. 5-10-1963).
87.
Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 406–407.
88.
Article 124 (2-A) provides that the age of the Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law provide (at present it is 65 years).
89.
Article 124 (2) (b) makes provision for removal of a Supreme Court Judge. The manner of removal is in Article 124(4) and (5) of the Constitution. Procedure of removal is known as Impeachment of Judges.
90.
Article 129 of the Constitution.
91.
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat,(1991) 4 SCC 406.
92.
For instance, C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132; Namboodripad v. Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015; Brahma Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 10.
93.
Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law, p. 417.
94.
Article 131.
95.
Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, p. 144.
96.
Ibid., Subs. By the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, Sec. 5, for the proviso (w.e.f. 1-11-1956).
97.
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2006 SC 661.
98.
Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law, p. 423; see also Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, p. 97.
99.
Article 132 of the Constitution.
100.
Article 133 of the Constitution deals with appeal in civil cases.
101.
Article 134 of the Constitution deals with appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.
102.
Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, pp. 147–148.
103.
Article 136 of the Constitution.
104.
Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, p. 429.
105.
Bakshi, P.M., op. cit., p. 145.
106.
Alamelu v. State, AIR 2011 SC 715, 719.
107.
Abhyudaya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145 (158).
108.
Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, p. 152.
109.
Supreme Court Annual report 2007–2008, p. 51, http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/annaulreport2007-08.pdf (accessed on May 8, 2015).
110.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 2 SCR 1006.
111.
S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, para 18.
112.
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226, para 49 and 51; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.
113.
Article 143 of the Constitution.
114.
In re Kerala Education Bill Case, AIR 1958 SC 956, the Supreme Court refused to submit its advisory opinion, stating that it is not binding on the Court because it is not a law within the meaning of Article 141, interpreting the word “may” under Article 143 as discretionary.
115.
Jain, M.P., Outlines of Indian Legal History, pp. 262–89.
116.
Article 231(1).
117.
Article 216 of the Constitution.
118.
Article 217 provides for appointment of a judge of the High Court.
119.
Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, pp. 477–479.
120.
Article 215 of the Constitution.
121.
Pandey, J.N., op. cit., p. 481.
122.
Article 226 of the Constitution.
123.
Article 233 of the Constitution.
124.
Ibid.
125.
Samanta and Basu, Test of Basic Structure: An analysis, p. 499.
126.
AIR 1951 SC 458.
127.
Clause (2) of Article 13 prohibits the State to make any law which takes away or abridges rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution. Part III deals with the Fundamental Rights of Citizens.
128.
Article 13 provides for the judicial review of all legislations in India, past as well as future. This power has been conferred on the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution respectively. Under these articles, the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional if it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
129.
AIR 1965 SC 845.
130.
AIR 1967 SC 1643.
131.
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
132.
Ibid., p. 500.
133.
Kesavananda Bharati Case, AIR 1973 SC 1461: (1973) 4 SCC 225.
134.
AIR 1975 SC 2299.
135.
AIR 1980 SC 1789.
136.
AIR 1975 SC 2299.
137.
AIR 1981 SC 271.
138.
The 9^th Schedule was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 primarily to deal with a situation in which the Supreme Court struck down land reform laws. The Supreme Court has held that it can strike down any law which is included in the 9^th Schedule if, in its opinion, the law violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
139.
(1994) 3 SCC 1, see Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 266–267.
140.
(1994) 6 SCC 360.
141.
(2002) 7 SCC 368.
142.
AIR 2007 SC 861.
143.
Kuldip Nayar and Ors. V. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1; M. Nagaraj and Ors. V. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71.
144.
Corwin, E.S., Judicial Review, Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, p. 457.
145.
Pandey, J.N. op.cit., p. 60.
146.
Ibid., p. 63.
147.
Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 222; see also Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India, p. 63.
148.
Ibid.
149.
AIR 1950 SC 124, see also Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118; see also Pandey, J.N., op. cit., p. 64.
150.
AIR 1953 SC 781; see also Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, pp. 465–468.
151.
Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339.
152.
Subjects are allotted under the Union List, Concurrent List and State List, placed under the 7^th Schedule of the Constitution.
153.
Article 246 of the Constitution.
154.
Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, p. 247; see also A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 297; State of Karnataka v. Ranganathan Reddy, AIR 1978 SC 215.
155.
Doctrine has been applied in the following cases: K.C.G.Narayan Dev v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375; R. D. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, 1977 SC 2279; Nageshwar v. A.P. S.R.T Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 316; State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252.
156.
Pandey, J.N., Constitution of India, p. 535.
157.
Pandey, J.N., op.cit., p. 437.
158.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661.
159.
Dhavan, R., The Supreme Court of India, A Socio-Legal Critique of its Juristic Techniques, p. 56.
160.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
161.
Mahajan, V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, p. 238.
162.
2001(7) SCC 231.
163.
Mahajan, V.D., op. cit., p. 238.
164.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
165.
Bennett & Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.
166.
Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).
167.
NAZ Foundation v. NCT of Delhi, WP (C) No. 7455/2001.
168.
For instance, Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S.479 (1965); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Civil Law, Philosophy of Law and Medical Law, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
Yeshwant Naik

Authors

Yeshwant Naik
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Naik, Y. (2017). Interpretative Methods and Judicial Power. In: Homosexuality in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_2
Published: 08 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55434-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55435-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics