The duty of the judiciary to promote social justice and interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in a way that furthers the statutory goal and protects the rights of weaker sections of society.

I entirely agree with the views expressed by my learned Brother Justice G.S. Singhvi. Having regard to the changing judicial approach noticed by His Lordship and if I, may say so, rightly, I may add a few words. I consider it a very important aspect in decision making by this Court.

2. Judges of the last Court in the largest democracy of the world have a duty and the basic duty is to articulate the Constitutional goal which has found such an eloquent utterance in the Preamble. If we look at our Preamble, which has been recognised, a part of the Constitution in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others vs. State of Kerala and another – [1973 SC 1461], we can discern that as divided in three parts. The first part is a declaration whereby people of India adopted and gave to themselves to Constitution. The second part is a resolution whereby people of India solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. However, the most vital part is the promise and the promise is to secure to all its citizens:

“JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

And to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;”

[See Justice R.C. Lahoti, Preamble- The Spirit and backbone of the Constitution of India, Anundoram Barooah law Lectures, Seventh Series, Eastern Book Company, 2004, at p. 3]

3. Judges and specially the judges of the highest Court have a vital role to ensure that the promise is fulfilled. If the judges fail to discharge their duty in making an effort to make the Preambular promise a reality, they fail to uphold and abide by the Constitution which is their oath of office. In my humble opinion, this has to be put as high as that and should be equated with the conscience of this Court.

4. As early as in 1956, in a Constitution Bench judgment dealing with an Article 32 petition, Justice Vivian Bose, while interpreting the Article 14 of the Constitution, posed the following question:

“After all, for whose benefit was the Constitution enacted?”

[Bidi Supply Co. vs. Union of India and others – AIR 1956 SC 479 at Para 23, pg. 487]

5. Having posed the question, the Learned Judge answered the same in his inimitable words and which I may quote:

“I am clear that the Constitution is not for the exclusive benefit of Governments and States; it is not only for lawyers and politicians and officials and those highly placed. It also exists for the common man, for the poor and the humble, for those who have businesses at stake, for the “butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker”. It lays down for this land a “rule of law” as understood in the free democracies of the world. It constitutes India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and guarantees in every page rights and freedom to the individual side by side and consistent with the overriding power of the State to act for the common good of all.” [ibid, Emphasis supplied]

6. The essence of our Constitution was also explained by the eminent jurist Palkhivala in the following words:

“Our Constitution is primarily shaped and moulded for the common man. It takes no account of “the portly presence of the potentates, goodly in girth”. It is a Constitution not meant for the ruler

“but the ranker, the tramp of the road,

The slave with the sack on his shoulders pricked on with the goad,

The man with too weighty a burden, too weary a load.””

[N.A. Palkhivala, our Constitution Defaced and Defiled,

MacMillan, 1974, p. 29]

7. I am in entire agreement with the aforesaid interpretation of the Constitution given by this Court and also by the eminent jurist.

8. In this context another aspect is of some relevance and it was pointed out by Justice Hidayatullah, as His Lordship was then, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharastra and Anr. – [AIR 1967 SC 1]. In a minority judgment, His Lordship held