NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Thursday said the provisions of the Constitution require dynamic interpretations to meet the ever-changing challenges faced by the society and polity and that the original intent of its framers was not meant to be a “set of iron-clad rules governing the social and legal relations”.
Delivering the M K Nambyar memorial lecture, the CJI said framers of the Constitution were men and women of great standing, understanding and vision, yet “it would be difficult to dispute that many of the problems which contemporary societies face would not have been present in the minds of even the most perspicacious drafters.”
He said, “The constitution of a country, which is more than mere text, is the foundation of this democratic culture and not the culmination of it. It merely stems from the framers’ intent, but as Nambyar showed us, it blossoms in the lived realities of its constituents in their specific social contexts.”
The CJI said as society evolves, the constitutional doctrine must follow suit, and the constitutional institutions must adapt flexibility to meet the challenges in a rapidly growing knowledge economy.
“The problem with an unreasoned tethering with the framer’s intent is that it renders the Constitution susceptible to inflexibility. The Constitution was never meant to be a set of iron-clad rules governing social and legal relations . It was meant to be a broader framework of principles which would constitute the bedrock of our new political reality,” he said.
Justice Chandrachud terming the legal journey of Nambyar, who is the father of former attorney general K K Venugopal, as synonymous to that of the Constitution in India and referred to his brilliant exposition on inviolability of fundamental rights in A K Gopalan case before the SC in 1950.
Explaining the role of lawyers and judges in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, the CJI said, “Lawyers play an indispensable role in shaping constitutional discourse. While judges have the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, it is the lawyers who craft and present the interpretive frameworks for the judiciary to consider. In this sense, interpretation is as much a job of a lawyer as it is of a judge, for without robust legal arguments and advocacy, constitutional interpretation would lack the necessary depth and diversity of perspectives.”
Delivering the M K Nambyar memorial lecture, the CJI said framers of the Constitution were men and women of great standing, understanding and vision, yet “it would be difficult to dispute that many of the problems which contemporary societies face would not have been present in the minds of even the most perspicacious drafters.”
He said, “The constitution of a country, which is more than mere text, is the foundation of this democratic culture and not the culmination of it. It merely stems from the framers’ intent, but as Nambyar showed us, it blossoms in the lived realities of its constituents in their specific social contexts.”
The CJI said as society evolves, the constitutional doctrine must follow suit, and the constitutional institutions must adapt flexibility to meet the challenges in a rapidly growing knowledge economy.
“The problem with an unreasoned tethering with the framer’s intent is that it renders the Constitution susceptible to inflexibility. The Constitution was never meant to be a set of iron-clad rules governing social and legal relations . It was meant to be a broader framework of principles which would constitute the bedrock of our new political reality,” he said.
Justice Chandrachud terming the legal journey of Nambyar, who is the father of former attorney general K K Venugopal, as synonymous to that of the Constitution in India and referred to his brilliant exposition on inviolability of fundamental rights in A K Gopalan case before the SC in 1950.
Explaining the role of lawyers and judges in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, the CJI said, “Lawyers play an indispensable role in shaping constitutional discourse. While judges have the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, it is the lawyers who craft and present the interpretive frameworks for the judiciary to consider. In this sense, interpretation is as much a job of a lawyer as it is of a judge, for without robust legal arguments and advocacy, constitutional interpretation would lack the necessary depth and diversity of perspectives.”
You may also like
Stalin meets PM Modi in New Delhi, seeks early release of pending funds
Akhila Bharatha Gau Seva Foundation launches Kashmir to Kanyakumari march for protection of Holy Cow
This Saturday evening, say 'bottoms up' at this tapas bar in Goa
Revolting moment sewage pipe explodes and showers motorists with human poo
