How can judicial interpretation of the Constitution contribute to soc…

The correct answer is Option (3) → By expanding fundamental concepts like ‘Right to Life’ to encompass quality dimensions.

Option (1) By restricting rights to literal constitutional meaning. — Incorrect. Reading a right only in its literal words would keep it narrow and fixed. The courts have done the opposite: the bare words of Article 21, the right to life, were read to cover livelihood, health, shelter, education and dignity, and only such wider readings let the Constitution change society.

Option (2) By preserving the intentions of original constitutional makers. — Incorrect. Courts read rights in keeping with the contemporary understanding of social justice, helped by social movements. Holding on to what the framers meant at the time would stop the meaning of rights from growing with society.

Option (3) By expanding fundamental concepts like ‘Right to Life’ to encompass quality dimensions. — Correct. The Constitution has the potential to extend the meaning of social justice, and the Supreme Court has used it. The terse words of Article 21, the right to life and liberty, have been read to include all that goes into a life of quality: livelihood, health, shelter, education and dignity. Such readings have given relief to bonded labourers, prisoners and others, so interpretation itself brings social transformation.

Option (4) By maintaining strict separation between constitutional articles. — Incorrect. The courts have joined articles together to widen rights: the Directive Principle of equal pay for equal work was read into the Fundamental Right to equality under Article 14, giving relief to plantation and agricultural labourers. Keeping articles strictly apart would block such relief.