True justice demands that the judiciary rise above factional debates and serve the larger community through purposive constitutional interpretation.

Q. True justice demands that the judiciary rise above factional debates and serve the larger community through purposive constitutional interpretation. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

B.R. Ambedkar's idea of constitutional morality — deciding by the Constitution's transformative values rather than popular or partisan sentiment — makes this proposition largely valid: in a plural polity, the judiciary's legitimacy rests on being seen as nobody's faction.

Why the judiciary must stand above faction - India chose constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary sovereignty; as the Vice-President affirmed, "none including the Judiciary is supreme, only the Constitution is" [2]. - Article 13 voids laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights and Article 32 makes the Supreme Court their guardian, so courts must check majoritarian legislation [1]. - Article 124(2) security of tenure and fixed service conditions are structural devices to insulate judges from political pressure [1]. - The Emergency (1975–77) remains the cautionary example of justice subordinated to factional power; officially too, "the burden of delivery of Rule of Law falls on the judges" [3].

Purposive interpretation as the instrument - Kesavananda Bharati (1973) read Article 368 purposively to evolve the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting even amending power [1]. - Navtej Singh Johar (2018) held constitutional morality must prevail over social morality while reading down Section 377; Shayara Bano similarly protected women's dignity. - PIL jurisprudence converted Article 32 into a vehicle for the poor, extending justice beyond the litigating class.

Necessary caveats - Purposive reading can slide into judicial overreach in policy domains, disturbing separation of powers affirmed in Ram Jawaya (1955). - Massive pendency across courts means delayed justice dilutes even the boldest interpretation. - Opacity in collegium appointments weakens the very credibility the doctrine seeks.

Thus the statement holds, provided purposive interpretation stays anchored in constitutional text and is matched by institutional reform — transparent appointments, faster disposal and judicial self-restraint. A judiciary that speaks for the Constitution rather than for any camp best secures the Preamble's promise of Justice — social, economic and political.

(~305 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India — Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice — Articles 13, 32, 124(2) and 368; constitutional supremacy 2. "None including the Judiciary is supreme, only the Constitution is; asserts the Vice President" — PIB — constitutional supremacy over all three organs 3. "The burden of delivery of Rule of Law falls on the judges: Vice President" — PIB — judicial responsibility for impartial delivery of the rule of law