Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has long been regarded as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning. Its judgments shape governance, rights, and institutional balance across the country. However, recent Constitution Bench decisions delivered in 2025 have sparked an important jurisprudential debate: does the Supreme Court follow a consistent interpretive methodology while construing the Constitution?
Justice BV Nagarathna’s observation that “judgments should not change with the change of faces” has renewed focus on a troubling pattern — reconsideration of settled constitutional positions without a clearly articulated interpretive framework. Two Constitution Bench decisions of 2025 illustrate this paradox vividly: Rejanish KV v. K Deepa, dealing with judicial appointments under Article 233, and the Presidential Reference on Governor’s assent to Bills under Articles 200–201.
While both judgments effectively revisit earlier precedent, they adopt diametrically opposite interpretive approaches, raising concerns about coherence, predictability, and constitutional certainty.
Rejanish KV v. K Deepa: Expanding Article 233 Through Purposive Interpretation
Background: Direct Recruitment to District Judiciary
Article 233(2) of the Constitution governs direct recruitment of District Judges from the Bar. Established precedent — including Chandra Mohan v. State of UP, Satya Narain Singh, All India Judges’ Association, and most notably Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi — had consistently held that:
- Only practising advocates with at least seven years of standing were eligible under the Bar quota.
- Once an advocate entered judicial service, they ceased to be an “advocate” for the purposes of Article 233(2).
This interpretation relied heavily on the literal reading of the constitutional text and the distinction between “judicial service” and the Bar.
The Constitution Bench’s Departure
In Rejanish KV, the Constitution Bench substantially altered this understanding. It held that:
- A judicial officer who had seven years’ standing at the Bar prior to entering service is eligible for direct recruitment as a District Judge.
- Eligibility must be assessed at the stage of application, not appointment.
Purposive and Contextual Reasoning
Rather than adhering strictly to the text, the Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Article 233. It emphasised:
- Strengthening the district judiciary
- Expanding the pool of meritorious candidates
- Enhancing judicial independence through broader competition
The Court treated constitutional silence as an enabling space, reasoning that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit counting prior Bar experience after entry into service.
Significantly, the Bench went beyond interpretation and issued directions to State governments to frame eligibility rules for in-service judicial officers and fixed a minimum age of 35 years — directions not traceable to the bare text of Article 233. Though Article 142 was not expressly invoked, the judgment reflects an equitable, gap-filling judicial approach.
Presidential Reference on Assent to Bills: A Turn to Strict Textualism
Issues Before the Court
The Presidential Reference examined whether:
- A Governor can indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by a State legislature.
- Courts can prescribe timelines or read in an obligation of expeditious action.
Articles 200 and 201 list the options available to a Governor but are silent on timelines.
Rejection of Judicially Imposed Timelines
A prior two-judge bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu had read a requirement of acting within a “reasonable time,” grounded in democratic principles and constitutional morality.
The Constitution Bench decisively rejected this approach, holding that:
- Absence of timelines in the text is decisive
- Courts cannot create timelines or doctrines like “deemed assent”
- Judicial supplementation would amount to rewriting the Constitution
Textual Silence as Prohibition
Unlike Rejanish, constitutional silence here was treated as a constraint, not an invitation. The Court refused to rely on:
- Democratic functioning
- Federal balance
- Precedents like Nabam Rebia or BP Singhal
It also expressed strong reservations about invoking Article 142 to resolve institutional deadlocks involving constitutional authorities.
The judgment prioritised separation of powers and institutional restraint, even at the cost of addressing real-world concerns of Governors indefinitely delaying legislative processes.
The Core Problem: Inconsistent Interpretive Methodology
The contrast between the two judgments exposes a fundamental inconsistency:
| Case | Interpretive Approach | Treatment of Silence |
|---|---|---|
| Rejanish KV | Purposive & contextual | Silence as enabling |
| Presidential Reference | Strict textualism | Silence as prohibitory |
Both judgments reconsider binding precedent. Both involve constitutional silence. Yet the Court offers no principled explanation for choosing one method over the other.
This inconsistency creates the impression that interpretive choice is bench-specific, not theory-driven. Notably, both Constitution Benches were presided over by the same Chief Justice, deepening concerns about unpredictability rather than personal judicial philosophy.
Implications for Constitutional Stability
The absence of a clear interpretive framework has serious consequences:
- Lower courts struggle to apply constitutional principles consistently
- Litigants face uncertainty in predicting outcomes
- Federal governance risks institutional deadlock without judicial clarity
- Precedential value of Constitution Bench judgments becomes diluted
Most critically, constitutional adjudication risks becoming case-specific discretion, rather than principled reasoning anchored in a coherent theory of interpretation.
The Way Forward: Need for an Articulated Interpretive Framework
To preserve constitutional integrity, the Supreme Court must do more than protect precedent from changing benches. It must:
- Clarify when purposive interpretation is justified
- Explain when textual fidelity must prevail
- Consistently articulate the role of constitutional silence
- Define limits of Article 142 in constitutional cases
Comparative constitutional courts, including the US Supreme Court and the UK Supreme Court, openly debate interpretive philosophies. India’s apex court must similarly acknowledge and systematise its interpretive choices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court stands at a crossroads. Its recent judgments reveal not merely doctrinal disagreement but a deeper interpretive paradox. Without a transparent and consistent framework, constitutional interpretation risks becoming unpredictable and personality-driven.
As Justice Nagarathna rightly observed, constitutional meaning must not fluctuate with changing benches. Ensuring coherence in interpretive methodology is essential — not just for legal certainty, but for preserving the Court’s institutional legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution.
Also Read
