In a powerful address at the First Dr Ambedkar Memorial Lecture organized by the Dr Ambedkar International Centre (DAIC), Supreme Court Judge Justice BR Gavai paid tribute to the extraordinary contributions of Dr BR Ambedkar, underlining his role in shaping the Indian Constitution and his far-sighted warnings about the misuse of legislative power.
Justice Gavai emphasized how Dr Ambedkar judged the progress of society by the treatment of women, describing them as more oppressed than Dalits. He acknowledged Ambedkar’s pioneering efforts in uplifting marginalized communities and noted the achievements made possible due to the Constitutional framework.
"Dr. Ambedkar always said that the women in this country are more oppressed than the Dalits and he, therefore, stated the furtherance of their upliftment was also a basic necessity."
Justice Gavai cited examples such as India’s first woman Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and many Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and OBC individuals who became IAS, IPS officers, Chief Secretaries, DGPs, and even Presidents like KR Narayanan and Ram Nath Kovind. He also acknowledged Justice KG Balakrishnan, a Dalit, who served as Chief Justice of India, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who hails from a backward class background.
“I am here only because of Dr. Ambedkar and the Constitution of India.”
Dr Ambedkar’s Warning on Liberal Amendments to the Constitution
Justice Gavai recalled Ambedkar’s firm stance against granting Parliament unregulated power to amend the Constitution. In the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar was criticized for the rigid amendment procedure, which required a two-thirds majority and ratification by half of the states.
“If the power is given to the Parliament to amend the Constitution very liberally, then the danger of a political party amending the Constitution to suit its ideology cannot be ruled out. This could not be permitted.”
Justice Gavai noted that Ambedkar allowed for constitutional evolution but insisted it must not become a tool for pushing political agendas. He also referred to the Keshavananda Bharati case, where the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
Ambedkar’s Response to Directive Principles Criticism
Justice Gavai highlighted how Ambedkar responded to criticism labeling the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) as mere moral statements.
“These Directive Principles have also come up for criticism. It is said that they are only pious declarations. They have no binding force… But I am not prepared to admit that they are useless because they have no binding force in law.”
Read Also:- Centre Submits Forensic Report on Alleged Audio Tapes of Former Manipur CM Biren Singh to SC
Ambedkar viewed the DPSPs as guiding tools for future governments. Though not legally enforceable, he believed these principles provided a framework for governance and accountability before the electorate.
“Whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes… He may not have to answer for their breach in a Court of Law. But he will certainly have to answer for them before the electorate at election time.”
Article 32: The Soul of the Constitution
Dr Ambedkar had described Article 32, which guarantees constitutional remedies, as the most crucial provision in the Constitution. Justice Gavai quoted Ambedkar’s remarks during the debates when others doubted the need to specify writs within the Article.
“If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important… I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.”
Ambedkar insisted that the Supreme Court’s power to issue writs must not depend on future legislations but must be constitutionally enshrined.
“This is one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Slams Foreign Courts Travel Ban on Minor as 'Atrocious' and Violation of Human Rights
Addressing the ‘Drifting Committee’ and Socialist Criticisms
Justice Gavai recalled Ambedkar’s iconic speech on 25 November 1949, where he responded to criticisms that the Drafting Committee was a "drifting committee".
“Drifting with mastery, and with an aim is like a compliment.”
Ambedkar also countered the socialist demand for absolute fundamental rights, warning that such rights without restrictions could disrupt the democratic fabric. He opposed communalist ideologies, saying:
“If the communalist ideology is accepted, the very concept of ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’ would be thrown away in the dustbin.”
Centralism vs Federalism Debate
Responding to concerns about excessive centralization, Ambedkar maintained that the Indian federal structure was well-balanced. Justice Gavai quoted his clarifications:
“The States under our Constitution are in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre and the States are co-equal in this matter.”
Ambedkar defended the allocation of residuary powers to the Centre, especially during emergencies, as essential for national unity.
“There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast majority of the people, the residual loyalty of the citizen in an emergency must be to the Centre and not to the Constituent States.”
Read Also:- Article 142 Turned Into 'Nuclear Missile' Against Democratic Forces, Says Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar
Political Democracy Needs Social Democracy
Justice Gavai concluded with Ambedkar’s timeless wisdom that political democracy cannot sustain without social democracy.
“What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life, which realises liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life… They form a union of trinity… Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty… Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.”
Justice Gavai reminded that India has remained united for 75 years despite challenges, proving Ambedkar’s vision of a strong and inclusive nation. Comparing with neighboring nations, he said:
“Though the country faced various external aggressions and internal disturbances, it remained united and strong… How relevant his proposals were, can be seen when we compare ourselves with our neighbours.”
