For a document to be effective as an instrument of governance, it is important that there is a shared understanding of its meaning between those using it to govern and those who are governed by it. The public satisfaction with outcomes that results when a shared understanding of the document is achieved goes a long way in assuring a nation of its survival in the years ahead, and its people of the bonafides of their government. It also instills in the people, the confidence and faith in governmental institutions that are necessary not only for sustaining those institutions but also for effective and happy governance.

The Indian Constitution, albeit worked for over seven decades now, has not witnessed a period in its history when its meaning, as interpreted by the country’s judiciary, has been unreservedly accepted by the other branches of governance or its people in general. That, however, need not necessarily be a matter for concern for, in any country that commits itself to a democratic form of government, there are different, and often conflicting, ideologies at work while interpreting it’s Constitution and it is such diversity in perspective that takes it closer to achieving the goals of participatory democracy. However, under the Indian Constitution, and the scheme of separation of powers inherent therein, it is the judiciary that is entrusted with the task of interpreting the Constitution based on the functional competence of its members in the craft of law and, in particular, the nuances of judicial interpretation. The interpretation given by a trained judicial mind need not necessarily find acceptance with the legally untrained public at large.