Originalism vis a vis living constitution in India an analytical study

Abstract

The metalinguistic way of interpreting the Constitution of India provides for two theories, namely, originalist theory and living constitutionalist theory. The debate between the originalists and living constitutionalists revolve around the interpretation of the Constitution itself. Originalists argue that the meaning of constitutional text is fixed and that it should bind constitutional actors. Living Constitutionalists contend that constitutional law can and should evolve in response to changing circumstances and values. Analysing these theories, there are few questions that lead to great debate. Some of them are: Is it true that our Constitution is so robust that it needs no change at all? Is it true that our Constitution makers were so farsighted that they had foreseen all the possible future problems to come and then framed the Constitution? Is it true that what has been understood at the time of framing the Constitution is to be understood in the same way in present times also? Is it true that Constitution can be changed or its interpretation can be changed without imposing any limitation on it? The answer to all these questions can be given by exploring the two different approaches i.e. originalism and living constitution . The solution lies in reconciling the two theories, which will result into a hybrid theory i.e. Living Originalism . The problem is to make a balance between the two in each other s light and to understand that it would be the acuteness of two approaches which can bring out the best interpretation of the Constitution. newline