Question

How can judicial interpretation of the Constitution contribute to social transformation?

• A. By restricting rights to literal constitutional meaning.
• B. By preserving the intentions of original constitutional makers.
• C. By expanding fundamental concepts like 'Right to Life' to encompass quality dimensions.
• D. By maintaining strict separation between constitutional articles.

Hint:

Think of how courts widened Article 21.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Think About What Transformation Needs:
For society to change through law, rights must grow to cover new situations. Words that stay fixed cannot do this.
So we should look for the option where meaning grows, not where it is frozen.

Step 2: Sort the Options into Two Groups:
Options 1, 2 and 4 each limit or freeze the Constitution. They talk about literal meaning, original intent and strict separation.
Option 3 talks about expanding a concept to include quality of life. It is the only one with growth.

Step 3: Use an Example from Indian Courts:
The Supreme Court read the Right to Life to include the right to livelihood, shelter, a clean environment and dignity.
These readings changed how the state treats the poor and the weak. This matches option 3.

Step 4: Conclusion:
Because only option 3 shows the Constitution being widened for social needs, it is the correct answer.

Step 5: Final Recheck:
Let us test the choice with a short case. Suppose a court is asked whether a pavement dweller can be removed with no notice. A literal reading of the words may allow it. A wider reading of the Right to Life, which includes livelihood, protects that person. Society then changes, because the state must now treat such people fairly.
This case shows that only the wider reading makes change possible, so option 3 passes the test.

Final Answer:
Option 3 is correct, because widening the Right to Life helps change society.
\[ \boxed{\text{Option 3}} \]