Restricting Constitution To Originalist Interpretation Is Unjust, It's a Living Document : CJI DY Chandrachud

It would be an injustice both to the drafters of the Constitution as well as to the Constitution itself to restrict it to an "originalist interpretation", said the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while explaining the dynamic nature of the document."In India, we describe the Constitution as a living instrument simply for the reason that while it is a document which enunciates eternal values for Indian society, it possesses the resilience necessary to ensure its continued relevance. Its continued relevance lies precisely in its ability to allow succeeding generations to apply the principles on which it has been founded to find innovative solutions to intractable problems of their times," he said delivering the ML Nambyar Memorial Lecture at New Delhi yesterday."Mr. Nambyar's story tells us that the story of the Constitution is a constant dialogue between generations of citizens," he said.The understanding of the Constitution as a living document aids constitutional courts in understanding new, novel problems. It also facilitates the Court in finding a jurisprudential basis for solutions to existing social problems, CJI explained. The Constitution evolves through judicial interpretations, legislative amendments, and societal changes, adapting to new contexts while preserving fundamental rights and values. This continuous dialogue ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and responsive, reflecting the collective vision and aspirations of the people across different epochs.Speaking of MK Nambyar's legacy as a constitutional lawyer who argued the first-ever constitutional interpretation case before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud said that Nambyar lead constitutional courts towards an interpretation that was foresighted and reflected a departure from 'originalism'. Explaining the debate, he said: "At its core, originalism posits that the Constitution's meaning is fixed and should be interpreted based on its original understanding at the time of its adoption, giving primacy to the purported intent of the framers. On the other hand, the concept of a living constitution suggests that the meaning of the Constitution evolves and should be interpreted in light of changing social values."He added: "These criticisms of relying solely on the intent of the framers' have now been widely accepted in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. However, back in the 1950s, with little jurisprudential guidance, Mr Nambyar's foresight was truly remarkable. From arguing the first-ever constitutional decision before the Supreme Court to drawing up the lead petition in Kesavananda Bharati, MK Nambyar's journey as a reader of the Constitution can be traced in many a jurisprudential landmark."It was during one of his passionate defences of a death-row convict that Nambyar caught the attention of Mr VG Row- a towering barrister who would serve as the bridge between Nambyar and the first-ever constitutional case of Independent India. "Having witnessed Nambyar's intricate eye for constitutional argument, Row suggested that he handle the case of AK Gopalan before the Supreme Court. Nambyar's reading of due process into Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, while arguing the AK Gopalan case, was to become his foremost contribution to Indian constitutional jurisprudence," CJI averred. In AK Gopalan, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India, was preventively detained in 1941. 6 years later, even as the country gained independence, and all British detainees were liberated, AK Gopalan found himself continuing to be detained. He lamented that once a member of the freedom movement, he was compelled to celebrate independence in paradoxical, continuous and oppressive detention by Indians and not by the British.Adding to this, CJI said: "VG Row was handling Gopalan's case before the Madras High Court. He invoked independent India's new Constitution to petition the Supreme Court in the matter. He chose Nambyar- barely two years old at the Madras Bar, to pursue Gopalan's remedies under the new constitutional regime. A doyen of the Bar himself, VG Row's choice of counsel before the Supreme Court was rather surprising. Nambyar, a lawyer who had never appeared before the Federal Court or the new Supreme Court, swiftly rose to the occasion. VG Row was so impressed by Mr Nambyar, that he chose him to even lead the arguments, instead of stalwarts of the Delhi Bar."Nambyar's interpretation of Article 21 Speaking on the arguments original and unique arguments put forth by Nambyar in A.K. Gopalan, CJI said: "Heard in the very first month of the inception of the Supreme Court, AK Gopalan's case presented a unique interpretational challenge. Appearing for the detenue, Nambyar argued that Articles 14, 19 and 21 ought to be read as a set of guarantees vested in an individual."On due process, the Constitution had clearly deviated from the US model. Explaining this, CJI stated: "Due process was a principle of...

Restricting Constitution To Originalist Interpretation Is Unjust, It's a Living Document : CJI DY Chandrachud

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags