I cannot speak about Pakistan, but I will comment on India.
India has a concept of the "basic structure" of the constitution[1], and that no constitutional amendment may violate the fundamental rights that the constitution's "basic structure" grants. Now, it should be clear that politically this has been overturned a few times by different leaders, but conceptually the Indian constitution is very much interpretive -- and in fact the "basic structure" doctrine is a Supreme Court decision.
So India most definitely does not fit the mould you describe. I couldn't find any information about literalism in Pakistan's constitution, so I really cannot comment on that.
> when a lawyer argued that "a sentence of hanging, gives no permission for murder."
This is not an example of interpretation -- in fact it's actually a wilful ignorance of the law. The sentence in British law has been (since its inception), "to be hung by the neck until dead". In any case, I have serious doubts that such a story is true (it's also clearly embellished).
> The first one is USA [...]
I disagree with domestic surveillance as well as many of things you mentioned, but you haven't given an example of how these things were allowed under constitutional interpretation. There in fact is a lot of evidence that shows that PRISM violated the constitutional rights of US citizens. I don't think there's any Supreme Court decisions about it though, so there isn't really a good argument in saying it's an interpretation problem if the constitution has never been interpreted for this particular case.
