the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory of Pondicherry for constituting the electoral college for the election of the President. In Shiv Kirpal Singh (supra), this Court did not refer to the decision in Advance Insurance (supra). Thus, the decision in Shiv Kirpal Singh is per incuriam to the extent of interpretation of Article 372A.
The provisions of the General Clauses Act as modified by the President in exercise of the power under Article 372A shall apply to the interpretation of the Constitution. It cannot be held otherwise merely because Article 367 does not refer to Article 372A. To interpret Article 367 in such a manner would render Article 372A and the amendments in the Constitution by the 1956 Constitution Amendment otiose. The power to make adaptations and modifications was granted to the President by Article 372A to bring the provisions of law in accordance with the Constitution, as amended by the 1956 Constitution amendment. If Article 367 is interpreted as excluding modifications under Article 372A, there would be an apparent inconsistency between the interpretation of the Constitution and the interpretation of statutes. While in the case of the former, the definition of State prior to the 1956 amendment would apply, in the case of the latter, the definition as amended by the 1956 amendment would apply. Thus, a literal interpretation of Article 367 would render the Constitution unworkable and would not give effect to the 1956 Constitution Amendment. This Court must render a purposive interpretation of Article 367. Article 367 must be read to mean that the General Clauses Act, as amended by adaptation and modification orders under Article 372 and Article 372A shall apply to the interpretation of the Constitution, unless the context requires. Thus, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “State” in
42
