Today(on 14th August), The Supreme Court of India dismissed a PIL filed by Shivam Mishra seeking definitions of terms in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Mishra argued that he did not understand terms like “fraternity” and would be adversely affected without clear definitions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 14th August), The Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the Court’s intervention in defining certain words used in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The PIL was filed by Shivam Mishra, who claimed that he did not fully understand the meanings of specific terms such as “fraternity” and would be adversely affected if the Court did not provide a clear definition.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar presided over the case. The Bench firmly expressed that defining such terms was not within the Court’s purview. Justice Khanna, addressing the petitioner, stated-
“Define karna hamara kaam nahi hain. Aap khud kijiye.” This translates to, “Defining is not our responsibility. You should do it yourself.”
The Court’s position was clear—interpreting or defining words from the Preamble falls outside the judiciary’s responsibilities.
The petitioner, Shivam Mishra, argued that the lack of clear definitions for words like “fraternity” in the Preamble was problematic for him. He contended that this ambiguity left him without a full understanding of the Constitution’s intent, and thus, he would be aggrieved if the Court did not intervene.
Despite these arguments, the Court was unconvinced by Mishra’s plea. The Bench, after hearing his submissions, stated-
“Aapke pleadings samaj nahi aate.”
Translation: “We do not understand your pleadings.”
This means-
“We do not comprehend your submissions.”
The Bench further noted the petitioner’s assertion that he would be aggrieved if the requested relief was not granted, reiterating their confusion regarding the petitioner’s overall argument.
This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the judiciary’s stance that its role is not to define the language of the Constitution but to interpret and enforce it within the scope of legal proceedings. The Preamble, which outlines the guiding principles of the Constitution, is intended to be broad and aspirational, and the Court indicated that it is not the judiciary’s function to narrow these definitions.
The dismissal of this PIL reinforces the principle that understanding and interpreting the Constitution is a matter for the citizens and scholars, rather than something to be defined or confined by judicial rulings. The Court’s message was clear: the Constitution’s language is meant to be interpreted through its application, not through judicial definitions.
