[21]In interpreting and applying the Constitution we therefore move with care and respect, and with appreciation that a diverse and plural society is diverse and plural precisely because not everyone agrees on what the Constitution entails. Respect for difference requires respect also for divergent views about constitutional values and outcomes.
[22]It is also necessary to be mindful, as the Constitutional Court reminds us, ‘of the fact that the major engine for law reform should be the Legislature and not the Judiciary’.[1] In the same breath in which it issued this cautionary, however, the Court drew attention to the imperative need for the common law to be consonant with ‘a completely new and different set of legal norms’. It therefore urged that courts ‘remain vigilant’ and not ‘hesitate to ensure that the common law is developed to reflect the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights’.[2]
[23]In moving forward we also bear in mind that the meaning of our constitutional promises and guarantees did not transpire instantaneously. Establishing their import involves a process of evolving insight and application.[3] Developing the common law
- ↑ Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security (Centre for Applied Legal Studies intervening) 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) para 36.
- ↑ Carmichele para 36.
- ↑ See Van Rooyen and others v The State and others (General Council of the Bar of South Africa intervening) 2002 (5) SA 246 (CC) para 75 (judicial independence is ‘an evolving concept’) and para 249 (practical reasons ‘at this stage of the evolving process of judicial
