Q.Different views on CAD-debate relevance today (common people too busy / conditions changed / present challenges unchanged, debates still explain practice reasons). Which argues relevance, which doesn't? Which do you agree with?

The three views disagree on whether the Constituent Assembly Debates still matter: one says people are too busy to engage with them, one says conditions have changed but the ideas can be reused, and one says today's challenges are basically the same and the debates explain today's practices.

The chapter poses this exact dilemma directly: since India's world has not changed so drastically from the world of the Constitution's framers, in terms of values, ideals and basic conception of society, a history of the Constitution is 'still very much a history of the present.' It also gives a specific, practical reason the debates matter: many current legal and political practices continue in force even though the reasoning behind them has been forgotten, and that forgetting only becomes harmful once a practice is challenged and nobody can explain or defend the underlying principle.

Applying this to the three positions:

1. essentially argues that even if the debates are theoretically valuable, they are practically out of reach for the common person, given the legal language and the daily pressures of life — this leans towards "not relevant" in a practical, accessibility sense, even though it doesn't deny their content might matter in principle.
2. accepts that conditions have genuinely changed, but still argues the old ideas can be adapted and reused to address new problems — this treats the debates as a resource to be creatively reinterpreted, a moderate form of relevance.
3. makes the strongest claim: that present-day challenges have not fundamentally changed, so the debates directly explain why current constitutional practices exist and matter, which is exactly the chapter's own argument for going back to the Constituent Assembly. I agree with (c), because it matches the chapter's own reasoning: understanding why a practice exists is essential precisely when that practice comes under challenge, which happens constantly in Indian politics — and the CAD is often the only place that reasoning survives.
   ✓Final answer

   (a) argues the debates are not practically relevant/accessible to ordinary people.

   (c) most strongly argues they ARE relevant, because unchanged present-day challenges make the debates' reasoning directly useful today.

   (b) is a middle position.

   I agree with (c) — it matches the chapter's own case for revisiting the Constituent Assembly.