9.4.2. Differing Interpretations

A number of amendments are a product of different interpretations of the Constitution given by the judiciary and the government of the day. When these clashed, the Parliament had to insert an amendment underlining one particular interpretation as the authentic one.

In India, the Constitution is interpreted by different branches of the government, including the judiciary and the legislature. When the judiciary makes a ruling about what the Constitution means, the government may have a different interpretation. If these interpretations conflict, Parliament may create an amendment to clarify the official stance. This process allows the law to adapt and ensures that the framework of the government remains meaningful and relevant despite different viewpoints.

Think of the Constitution as a recipe book, where judges are chefs using the recipe to create different dishes based on their understanding of the ingredients. If two chefs interpret the recipe differently and create conflicting dishes, the head chef (Parliament) might step in to revise the recipe, deciding which version should be followed in the future.

During the period between 1970 and 1975, the Parliament repeatedly made amendments to overcome the adverse interpretations by the judiciary.

The years 1970 to 1975 were marked by political upheaval in India, including the internal Emergency declared in 1975. During this turbulent time, Parliament felt compelled to take action, amending the Constitution in response to judicial interpretations that they believed did not align with the government’s goals. This illustrates how politics can directly influence constitutional amendments, sometimes leading to significant changes in governance.

Imagine a sports team where the coach (Parliament) disagrees with the referee's (Judiciary's) decision on a foul. In response to a series of contentious calls, the coach introduces new rules to clarify what fouls are going forward. This change aims to ensure that the team can perform better under the new interpretations of the game.

Thirdly, there is another large group of amendments that have been made as a result of the consensus among the political parties.

Some amendments arise when political parties agree on a need for change, reflecting the aspirations and philosophies of society. This consensus can lead to progressive changes that align with the evolving values of the populace, showcasing democracy in action. Such agreements are especially visible in post-1984, where despite differing party ideologies, many amendments emerged from shared political goals.

Consider a community meeting where neighbors come together to discuss how to improve their neighborhood park. They might all have different ideas about what should be done, but through discussion, they reach a common goal, such as adding a playground. This agreement reflects collective interests and desires, similar to how political consensus can drive constitutional amendments.

The amendments during the period 1970 to 1980 generated a lot of legal and political controversy. In particular, the 38th, 39th and 42nd amendments have been the most controversial amendments so far.

During the late 1970s, several amendments sparked debates and protests due to their perceived overreach or misuse of power. These included significant changes that were seen as attempts by the ruling party to consolidate control, often criticized for compromising democratic principles. The 42nd amendment, for example, attempted to override previous judicial rulings and fundamentally altered constitutional balance, which led to widespread dissent.

Think of a sports league where the governing body implements controversial rules to benefit a particular team. Fans and other teams might protest these rules, arguing they undermine fair play. Similarly, the controversial amendments during this period led to public outcry and a demand for a return to fair governance.

--