Doctrine of Living Constitution

Articles, Constitutional Law

Doctrine of Living Constitution

December 26, 2024

The Doctrine of Living Constitution posits that a constitution is a dynamic, evolving document that adapts to contemporary societal needs and values. In India, this doctrine has significantly influenced constitutional interpretation, ensuring the Constitution’s relevance in changing times.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The Doctrine of Living Constitution asserts that a constitution should be interpreted as a living document, capable of evolving with societal changes. This approach contrasts with originalism, which seeks to interpret the constitution based on the framers’ original intent. In the Indian context, the living constitution approach allows the judiciary to interpret constitutional provisions in light of contemporary societal needs, ensuring the Constitution’s relevance over time. This dynamic interpretation has enabled the Constitution to address modern challenges and protect individual rights effectively.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The concept of a living constitution in India has evolved through judicial interpretations. Initially, the Supreme Court adopted a literal approach, as seen in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, where the Court held that Article 21 did not require Indian courts to apply a due process of law standard. However, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Court overruled A.K. Gopalan, interpreting Article 21 to include a procedure that is “just, fair, and reasonable,” thus embracing a more dynamic interpretation. This shift marked the beginning of the living constitution approach in India, allowing the Constitution to adapt to changing societal values and norms.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In Canada, the living constitution is described under the living tree doctrine, which allows for a broad and progressive interpretation of the constitution. Similarly, the United Kingdom’s unwritten constitution evolves through statutes and judicial decisions, reflecting contemporary societal values. In contrast, the United States has a significant debate between originalism and living constitutionalism, with proponents of each approach advocating for different methods of constitutional interpretation. India’s approach aligns more with the Canadian and UK models, emphasizing the Constitution’s adaptability to changing times.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution provides the procedure for its amendment, allowing adaptability to changing needs. However, the Supreme Court, through the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, held that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This ensures that fundamental principles remain intact, even as the Constitution evolves. The Court’s interpretation of the Constitution as a living document allows for flexibility in its application, ensuring its relevance in contemporary society.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461: This landmark case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework. The case involved challenges to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and raised issues about the extent of Parliament’s amending power. The Court held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, cannot be altered by amendments.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, striking down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that sought to exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments. The case questioned the validity of amendments that curtailed judicial review and expanded Parliament’s amending power. The Court held that the limited amending power of Parliament is itself a basic feature of the Constitution, and any amendment that removes this limitation is unconstitutional.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161: The Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, demonstrating the living constitution approach by interpreting existing provisions to address contemporary issues. The case arose from challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, raising issues about the right to privacy. The Court held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, showcasing the Constitution’s adaptability to modern challenges.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

Basic Structure Doctrine: Asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments, ensuring its core principles remain intact. This doctrine was established in the Kesavananda Bharati case and has been reaffirmed in subsequent judgments.
Living Tree Doctrine: Originating from Canadian jurisprudence, it views the Constitution as a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. In India, this metaphor has been adopted to emphasize the Constitution’s dynamic nature.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

Ut res magis valeat quam pereat: This legal maxim means that the law should be interpreted in a way that it is effective rather than void. It supports the living constitution approach by advocating for interpretations that ensure the law’s applicability in contemporary contexts.

AMENDMENTS / ADDITIONS / REPEALING

The Indian Constitution has undergone numerous amendments to address emerging needs. However, the Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that such amendments do not alter its fundamental principles. For instance, the 42nd Amendment attempted to curtail judicial review, but the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India struck down these provisions, reinforcing the Constitution’s core values.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

The living constitution approach has been praised for allowing the Constitution to adapt to changing societal values, ensuring its relevance. However, critics argue that it grants excessive power to the judiciary, potentially leading to judicial overreach. Despite this, the approach has enabled progressive interpretations, such as recognizing the right to privacy and decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts, reflecting societal evolution.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

The Doctrine of Living Constitution is expected to play a significant role in addressing future challenges. By allowing the judiciary to interpret the Constitution dynamically, this approach ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and effective in safeguarding individual rights, promoting social justice, and addressing emerging societal needs.