The Supreme Court invoked the principle of ‘Transformative Constitutionalism’ in the case of:

Question

The concept of per se disqualification is unknown to the Constitution. Any decision as to the disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule must be taken after following the due process of law and the principles of natural justice. A member incurs disqualification only after adjudication by the Speaker. The procedure for the adjudication of disqualification petitions is prescribed under the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules 1986. The MLAs facing disqualification retain the right to participate in the proceedings of the House and vote on resolutions. Article 189(2) of the Constitution provides that any proceedings of the House are not invalid even if it is subsequently discovered that persons who were not entitled to participate or vote or otherwise take part in the proceedings, did so. In Pratap Gouda Patil v. State of Karnataka and Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi, this Court observed that members should not be stopped from taking part in the proceedings of the House merely because disqualification proceedings were pending against them
Prior to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker’s enquiry as to the existence of a split within a political party was limited to a prima facie determination for deciding the disqualification proceedings. As a result of the deletion of Paragraph 3, the authority of the Speaker to form even a prima facie opinion regarding a split within a political party has been removed. Upon the deletion of Paragraph 3, the only defence for disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are that of a merge under Paragraph 4. The Election Commission of India is the sole authority empowered to decide disputes between rival factions of a political party according to the provisions of the Symbols Order.
[Extracted from Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023)]

Answer 1

Step 1: Understanding Transformative Constitutionalism.
Transformative Constitutionalism is a concept that emphasizes the judiciary's role in interpreting the Constitution in ways that promote social change and justice. It involves evolving constitutional interpretations that respond to the needs of a society in transition, ensuring that fundamental rights are upheld in accordance with contemporary values. This principle asserts that the Constitution should not remain static, but should instead be interpreted in a dynamic and progressive manner to foster social transformation and justice.
Step 2: The Navtej Singh Johar Case and Its Significance.
The Supreme Court of India invoked the principle of Transformative Constitutionalism in the landmark case of {Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India (2018)}. This case was pivotal in decriminalizing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had previously criminalized consensual same-sex relationships. The petitioners argued that the law violated the fundamental rights of individuals under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The Court, in its judgment, acknowledged the evolving nature of societal values and emphasized the need for constitutional interpretation to reflect inclusivity, dignity, and equality for all citizens.
Step 3: Role of Judiciary in Social Transformation.
In this case, the Supreme Court used the principle of Transformative Constitutionalism to ensure that the law adapts to social change. The Court recognized that while Section 377 may have had historical relevance, it no longer aligned with the principles of equality and freedom under the Constitution. By striking down the provision, the Court acknowledged that constitutional interpretation must evolve to meet the needs of marginalized groups, ensuring their fundamental rights are protected. This decision marked a major step forward in advancing the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in India.
Step 4: Conclusion.
Thus, the Supreme Court's invocation of Transformative Constitutionalism in the {Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India (2018)} case reflects the Court's role in evolving constitutional interpretation to achieve social justice and equality. Therefore, the correct answer is Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India (2018). This case is a prime example of how constitutional principles can be applied to adapt to changing social values and promote inclusivity.

The Supreme Court invoked the principle of ‘Transformative Constitutionalism’ in the case of:

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws

Questions Asked in AIBE exam