Fali Sam Nariman (born 10 January 1929) is an Indian jurist. He is a senior advocate to the Supreme Court of India since 1971.

In a recent interview with Fali Nariman, he said that the Indian Constitution, often hailed as one of the most comprehensive and intricate legal documents in the world, holds a unique position in the country's history. In a conversation with Mr. Nariman, a legal luminary in India, we delve into the significance of the Constitution's preamble and the role of judicial interpretation in breathing life into this living document.

The Importance of the Preamble

In the discussion, Mr. Nariman emphasizes that the preamble of the Indian Constitution is, in his view, the most crucial part of the document. He argues that it serves as a guiding light, providing insight into the aims and aspirations of the constitution's framers. Despite its often-overlooked nature, the preamble stands as a symbol of the nation's conscience.

Part III of the Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights, and Part IV, which covers Directive Principles of State Policy (though not enforceable in court but binding on the government), are referred to as the "conscience of the constitution." According to Mr. Nariman, the preamble plays a similar role by expressing the intent of those who crafted the Constitution.

The Controversy of 'India' vs. 'Bharat'

One intriguing aspect discussed is the use of the term 'India' in the English version of the preamble, as opposed to 'Bharat,' which appears in Article I of the Constitution. Mr. Nariman dismisses the notion that this reflects a preference for 'India' over 'Bharat.' He highlights the historical context of language controversies during the constitution's framing, emphasizing that the choice of 'India' in English doesn't diminish the significance of 'Bharat' in the Hindi version of the Constitution.

Judicial Interpretation: Breathing Life into the Constitution

Mr. Nariman underscores the pivotal role of judicial interpretation in making the Constitution a dynamic, living document. He argues that the phrase "We the People" is a testament to this dynamism. While the Constitution was initially framed for a population of approximately 350 million people, most of whom are no longer alive today, Mr. Nariman believes that the interpretation of the Constitution has allowed it to apply to every living person.

This interpretation stands in contrast to the literalist approach taken in some countries, notably the United States. In India, the duty to interpret the Constitution is seen as integral to its vitality. The context of the times and contemporary issues are considered essential elements in the interpretation process.

It becomes evident that the Indian Constitution is not a static document confined to the era of its framing. Instead, it is a dynamic, living instrument that evolves through judicial interpretation to remain relevant to the changing needs and aspirations of the Indian populace. The preamble, often overlooked, stands as a symbol of India's constitutional conscience, guiding the nation on its path of progress and justice. The Constitution of India, framed over seven decades ago, continues to be a beacon of hope and progress for millions of Indians.

In a continued discussion with Mr. Nariman, we explore the critical role of judicial interpretation in the Indian Constitution, which has now entered its 75th year. We delve into the concept of a living constitution, the significance of the Basic Structure theory, and the ongoing debate surrounding the interpretation of the Constitution.

Judicial Interpretation: A Dynamic Force

Mr. Nariman underscores the dynamic nature of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that its continued relevance and vitality hinge on judicial interpretation. He asserts that judges have a duty to breathe fresh and richer meanings into its articles, ensuring that the Constitution remains pertinent to the evolving needs of society.

Crucially, Mr. Nariman dispels the notion that the Constitution is carved in stone, unalterable and frozen in time. Instead, he posits that the judiciary plays an indispensable role in understanding and adapting the Constitution to the contemporary period. The Constitution, conceived over seven decades ago, continues to guide India into its 75th year, thanks to the efforts of judges who have expanded and redefined its scope.

The Supreme Court: Final Arbiter of the Constitution

Mr. Nariman highlights the Indian Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, reiterating that its role is pivotal in shaping the document's meaning. The Supreme Court has evolved from its initial composition of eight judges to the current 34 or 35, reflecting the changing dynamics of India's society and legal landscape.

The Role of Precedent in Shaping Interpretations

In discussing the fluid nature of constitutional interpretations, Mr. Nariman emphasizes the importance of precedent. The decisions made by the judiciary build upon one another, setting the stage for evolving interpretations. What five judges affirm today, seven or nine judges may alter or overturn in the future, contributing to the Constitution's dynamism.

The Basic Structure Theory: A Fundamental Concept

The conversation turns to the Basic Structure theory, which asserts that certain core features of the Constitution are beyond the scope of amendment. While some doubts have been raised about this theory by retired Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Mr. Nariman points out that various Supreme Court cases and precedents, including Kesavananda Bharati, Bhim Singh, Kuldip Nayar, and Indira Gandhi versus Raj Narain, have consistently upheld the existence of a Basic Structure in the Constitution.

Mr. Nariman clarifies that the Basic Structure theory emerged from the Kesavananda Bharati judgment in 1973, though by a narrow majority of seven to six in a bench of 13 judges. He further notes that Chief Justice A.N. Ray convened a postmortem panel of 13 judges to examine the verdict. Ultimately, the Basic Structure theory persisted and remains a foundational concept in the Indian Constitution.

In the ongoing discourse about the Indian Constitution, Mr. Nariman's insights shed light on the Constitution's living and adaptable nature. Judicial interpretation, guided by precedent, continues to shape and redefine its meaning, ensuring that it remains relevant and dynamic as India enters its 75th year of independence. The Basic Structure theory, despite recent doubts, remains a cornerstone of constitutional jurisprudence in India, a testament to the enduring importance of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution's integrity and vitality.

Mr. Nariman provides insights into the historical context of the Kesavananda Bharati case, the subsequent affirmation of the Basic Structure theory by multiple benches of the Supreme Court, and the recent doubts raised by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The Kesavananda Bharati Case and Its Legacy

In 1973, the Kesavananda Bharati case marked a pivotal moment in Indian legal history. The case introduced the Basic Structure theory, which posits that certain core features of the Indian Constitution are beyond the scope of amendment. Mr. Nariman elucidates that this theory emerged from a narrow majority of seven to six among a bench of 13 judges.

However, a lesser-known event occurred in November 1975, when a bench of 13 judges was dissolved by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, creating a veil of uncertainty around the court's deliberations. Mr. Nariman points out that historical records are sparse due to the absence of tape recordings. Nevertheless, constitutional historian H.M. Seervai provides valuable insights into this enigmatic period. Seervai's account suggests that, except for the Chief Justice, all 12 judges believed the Basic Structure doctrine was not erroneous and should be upheld.

The Unwavering Consensus on the Basic Structure

The conversation underscores the significance of this revelation: a consensus among the majority of judges in the bench to uphold the Basic Structure theory. In essence, Chief Justice Ray's decision to dissolve the bench appeared to be a bid to avoid embarrassment, as he would have been the lone dissenter.

Moreover, Mr. Nariman notes that the reaffirmation of the Basic Structure theory continued unabated, with unanimous verdicts by benches of nine judges, the latest occurring in 2007. This underscores the enduring nature of the doctrine and its acceptance within the Indian judiciary.

Challenging Precedent: Chief Justice Gogoi's Perspective

The conversation turns to the recent statements by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who questioned the validity of the Basic Structure theory. Mr. Nariman acknowledges that individuals are entitled to their opinions, even if they differ from established legal precedent. However, he firmly believes that Justice Gogoi's view on the Basic Structure theory is incorrect.

The Sovereignty of the Indian Constitution

Mr. Nariman also clarifies the concept of sovereignty in the Indian context. Unlike the British Parliament, which is considered sovereign, the Indian Constitution is supreme but not sovereign. The separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches ensures that no single organ of the state enjoys absolute sovereignty.

The Basic Structure theory remains an integral part of India's constitutional legacy, shaping the interpretation of the Constitution for nearly five decades. Despite recent challenges to its validity, the overwhelming consensus among judges and the enduring legacy of the doctrine stand as a testament to the resilience and adaptability of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The conversation with Mr. Nariman underscores the importance of precedent and the enduring significance of the Basic Structure theory in maintaining the integrity and vitality of the Indian Constitution.

we explore the concept of "One Nation, One Election" and its potential implications for India's federal or quasi-federal structure. Mr. Nariman offers insights into the challenges of synchronizing elections across the country and the potential impact on the nation's political landscape.

The "One Nation, One Election" Proposal

"One Nation, One Election" is a proposal that advocates holding all elections, including those for state assemblies and the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament), simultaneously. The primary goal is to streamline the election process and reduce the frequency of polls, which can be logistically challenging and resource-intensive.

Impact on the Federal Structure

Mr. Nariman acknowledges that he has not extensively examined the potential impact of this proposal on India's federal or quasi-federal structure. However, he raises a valid point that its effect would largely depend on how the Supreme Court interprets and approaches the matter.

Challenges in Implementation

Mr. Nariman also highlights a practical challenge associated with the "One Nation, One Election" concept. He emphasizes the immense difficulty in organizing a nationwide election, particularly concerning security. Ensuring security across all constituencies, whether at the state or national level, requires a significant allocation of resources and personnel.

The Federalism Debate

The discussion about "One Nation, One Election" inevitably touches on the broader debate about federalism in India. India's political structure is often described as quasi-federal because it combines elements of federalism with a strong central government. The proposal to synchronize elections raises questions about whether it might tilt the balance of power in favor of the central government.

The concept of "One Nation, One Election" presents an intriguing but complex idea that would require careful consideration of its implications on India's federal or quasi-federal structure. Mr. Nariman's remarks emphasize the practical challenges involved in implementing such a system, particularly in terms of security arrangements. The proposal warrants further examination, both from a constitutional and logistical perspective, to determine its potential impact on India's political landscape and federalism.