1. By virtue of Article 128 (1) (a), it is the preserve of the Constitutional Court to provide an interpretation of the Constitution other than the Bill of Rights.
2. The Constitution makes it clear in Article 267 (1) that the Constitution shall be interpreted in accordance with the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Court, in interpreting the Constitution, has to apply its mind to the rights enshrined therein.
3. It is trite that the Constitution by virtue of Article (1) (1) is the supreme law of the land and no act of Parliament should contradict it either in letter or spirit. The Constitutional Court is also empowered to strike down any statutory provision that contradicts the Constitution under Article 128 (1) (b) upon the application of any person made under article 128 (3) (a).
4. Article 118(2) (e) is a guiding principle of adjudication framed in mandatory terms. It is a basic truth applicable to different situations. The Article's beneficial value is achieved well if it is applied in an eclectic fashion depending on the nature of the rule before it.
5. Article 118(2) (e) is not intended to do away with existing principles, laws and procedures, even where the same may constitute technicalities. It is intended to avoid a situation where a manifest injustice would be done by paying unjustifiable regard to a technicality.
6. Whether a particular provision is a technicality may be determined from its form, its content and its application in the peculiar circumstances of the issue before the court.
7. The rules of procedure in criminal trials as a whole, are not in themselves technicalities and Article 118(2) (e) is not intended to turn them into technicalities that fall within its ambit. Sections 207 and 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code are necessary rules of procedure and not mere technicalities.