Purposive Interpretation: Enhancing Access to Justice under Articles 14 and 21

Paper Code: AIJACLAV08RP2026

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Sep 10, 2026

Author Details

Mr. Syed Suhail K Z, Student of LL.M (Constitution Law), CMR College Bangalore

Purposive Interpretation: Enhancing Access to Justice under Articles 14 and 21

Abstract

As a living document the Indian Constitution has always been subject to judicial interpretation to suit the needs of the dynamic society. Purposive interpretation has become one of the most effective methods of broadening the provisions of fundamental rights, especially in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This essay discusses how the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India has used purposive interpretation in order to make these constitutional provisions strong mechanisms in guaranteeing access to justice. The paper follows the process of movement of a more limited, more literalist approach to a more general, more rights-oriented interpretive mode of approach that places greater emphasis on the purpose and spirit of the Constitution. The Court has greatly broadened the scope of the Article 21 to incorporate rights of speedy trial, livelihood, and dignified existence, and in the process strengthened the equality imperative of Article 14, through landmark judicial pronouncements. The paper also discusses the role of purposive interpretation in the process of promoting Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and making justice more democratic to the marginalized and undervalued in the society. It is a critical assessment of how judicial activism may serve to fill the gaps in the legal system, as well as to encompass the issue of judicial overreach and the separation of powers. The paper takes a doctrinal and analytical point of view and explains that purposive interpretation is an indispensable means of achieving substantive justice and that constitutional guarantees are not made illusory. It highlights the importance of ensuring that judicial creativity and institutional restraint are balanced in order to maintain judicial legitimacy.

Keywords: Purposive Interpretation, Article 14, Article 21, Access to Justice, Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Activism.