Many amendments to the Constitution of India have been a product of different interpretations given by the judiciary and the government. When these interpretations clashed, the Parliament had to insert an amendment underlining one particular interpretation as the authentic one.

It is part of democratic politics that various institutions interpret the Constitution and particularly the scope of their own powers in different manners. Many times, the Parliament did not agree with the judicial interpretation and therefore, sought to amend the Constitution to overcome the ruling of the judiciary.

This situation arose frequently in the period between 1970 and 1975. During this time, the two decades from 1970 to 1990 witnessed a large number of amendments.

There are many examples of how judicial interpretation changed our understanding of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that reservations in jobs and educational institutions cannot exceed fifty per cent of the total seats, which has now become an accepted principle. Similarly, in the case involving reservations for other backward classes, the Supreme Court introduced the idea of creamy layer and ruled that persons belonging to this category were not entitled to benefits under reservations.

The Judiciary has also contributed to informal amendments by interpreting provisions concerning right to education, right to life and liberty and the right to form and manage minority educational institutions.