In a nutshell, these decisions have taken the view that the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution, that the language of the Constitution cannot be understood without reference to the common law, that to determine the extent of the grants of power, the Court must place itself in the position of the men who framed and ' adopted the Constitution and inquire what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of those grants, that when a power is conferred to legislate on a particular topic it is important, in determining the scope of the power, to have regard to what is ordinarily treated as embarced within that topic in legislative practice and particularly in the legislative practice of the State which has conferred that power, that the object of doing so is emphatically not to seek a pattern to which a due exercise of the power must conform, but to ascertain the general conception involved in the words of the Act, and finally, that Parliament must be presumed to have had Indian legislative practice in mind and unless the context otherwise clearly requires, not to have conferred a legislative power intended to be interpreted in a sense not understood by those to whom the Act was to apply.