Provisions in the Indian Constitution are capable of an ‘ecdysis’. That is, they may completely shed their skin to don another. Their text may acquire a new legal meaning without any formal change whatsoever. This provokes a unique concern: Constitutional provisions may get pitted against one another. The conflict is a given due to the presence of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. It demands that all under the Constitution be ever-compliant with fixed Constitutional mores. Only select provisions carry this essence of indispensability. They constitute the core around which the Constitution thrives and was born for. Dynamism denotes that provisions outside of the core may don an unpalatable meaning. Basic provisions may conflict with the circumstantial ones. The concern only deepens from thereon. Even the essential text may not be eternal for posterity. That is, the core provisions may themselves switch meanings. As such, the circumstantial and static provisions may again be in a conflict with the core. This time, obsolescence is the latter’s undoing. Either way, interpretive fluidity heightens the risk of an inter-provisional conflict. A surgical scrutiny of the doctrine helps construct the conceptual aftermath. It was initially forged for unconstitutional amendments that attacked the core.  Time has wrought on it details that enable an enhanced function. It now tackles all forms a threat may shapeshift into.  The basis of this assertion is the doctrine’s design. It is best justified as a manifestation of ‘living-originalism’. This theoretical underpinning makes for a unique occurrence. India’s Constitution may cauterise its own text for self-preservation.