Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Thursday defended his ruling in the Sabarimala case, where he argued that prohibiting menstruating women from entering the temple in Kerala amounted to untouchability, which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.
The CJI explained that the framers of the Constitution had intentionally not restricted the meaning of untouchability to a single social evil, such as caste discrimination. “The context of this provision (Article 17) was the stratified society we found ourselves in. By reviewing the Constituent Assembly debates, I concluded that the framers deliberately left untouchability untethered to caste; that Article 17 guaranteed protection against notions of impurity and pollution—of which caste was only one example,” he said.
He made these remarks while delivering the MK Nambyar Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, on the topic Foresighted Mr. MK Nambyar: Constitutional Journeys Beyond Original Intent. MK Nambyar was the father of Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal.
In his speech, CJI Chandrachud opposed a strict, originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He argued that originalism assumes the framers’ intent can be precisely known and consistently interpreted, which he believes is inaccurate. “Originalism wrongly presumes that the intent of the framers can be precisely ascertained. History does not speak with one voice, and different readers can interpret it inconsistently. Should a Constitutional Court freeze the meaning of constitutional guarantees and provisions to the ‘Founders’ understanding?” he questioned.
He emphasized that constitutional doctrine must evolve with society. “As society evolves, so must constitutional doctrine. The institutions created by the Constitution must adapt to the challenges of a rapidly growing knowledge economy,” he said.
CJI Chandrachud also underscored that the Constitution was never intended to be a rigid set of rules governing social and legal relations. “It was never the framers’ intention to lock the provisions of our Constitution in place for eternity. Doing so would hinder the necessary flexibility that is essential for the Constitution’s longevity.”
He concluded by stating that the Constitution is more than its written text. “It is the foundation of our democratic culture, not its culmination. It stems from the framers’ intent but, as Mr. Nambyar showed us, it flourishes in the lived realities of its constituents within their specific social contexts,” he added.
