Dr. Ambedkar First Memorial Lecture

May I request all of you to give a big round of applause for honorable Justice Bushan Gawisa? Jin, sir, may I have your permission to begin, sir? Jahin namaskar.

What an auspicious day of 14th April, and it is indeed my honor to welcome honorable Justice Gawai on this auspicious day on which he has taken out his precious time and he has consented to be here for the first Dr. Ambedkar memorial lecture of Dr. Dr. Ambedkar International Center.

A word about DIC, sir. DIC, which is Dr. Ambedkar International Center, is not only a convention center, but we are taking strides to make it a center of excellence in socioeconomic studies, transformation studies, and Buddhist studies. So, under these two verticals, we organize academic events. In that line, sir, we have organized a special lecture series. We have also organized many academic events to take the vision, mission, and goal of DIC ahead.

Sir, I am very sure all the legal fraternity which is here, they do not need any introduction for honorable Justice Gawai. But for the benefit of the students, guests, and other members, other guests who are here, I will definitely take time before we request honorable Justice Gawai to give his uh views on today's topic. Before that, before commencing today's proceedings, may I request our member secretary, uh Shri Pik Singh sir, to kindly come on the stage and felicitate honorable Justice Gawai with a token of gratitude for DIC? [Applause] Thank you, sir.

A short introduction, I am sure, for the students. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, India has a rich tradition of upholding justice, with justice being considered a paramount dharma. Many esteemed judges have upheld this tradition, prioritizing social welfare and public interest. One such notable figure is Justice Bushan Ram Krishna Gawai, a respected judge of the Supreme Court of India, known for his balanced judgments and deep understanding of the constitutional law. Justice Gawai was born in the orange city of Nagpur into a family with a deep commitment to public service and social justice. Justice Gawai pursued his law degree at Nagpur University and enrolled as an advocate in 1985. He practiced mainly in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench, focusing on constitutional, civil, and criminal law and served as council for the Union of India, state of Maharashtra, and multiple public sector bodies. On November 14, 2003, Justice Gawai was appointed as the judge of Bombay High Court, where he served with distinction for nearly 16 years. His consistent delivery of fair and well-reasoned judgments earned him recognition across the legal community. On 24th May 2019, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India. Justice Gawai is recognized for his clarity in legal reasoning and impartial approach. He has delivered judgments on various issues, including constitutional law, administrative law, environmental matters, and criminal jurisprudence. His decisions often reflect his sensitivity towards the rights of marginalized groups.

Today we are indeed honored to hear Justice Gawai enlighten us on today's subject, which is Dr. Ambedkar's contribution in constitution and nation building as such. There could be no one more befitting to enlighten us on this subject than a jurist who not only understands the constitution in its letter and spirit but also carries forward the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar through his own work on the bench. May I request now honorable Justice Gawai to give us the talk? [Applause]

Sir, Mr. Singh, the secretary of Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Center, Dr. Kakash Patil, director, the learned senior advocates present here, my esteemed colleague Justice Prasanna Navar, the president of SCORA, Mr. and all other office bearers, ex-office bearers, the lawyers present in big number, dear students, and the esteemed members of the audience, it gives me a great pleasure to be with you this evening on the auspicious occasion of Dr. Ambedkar's 134th birth anniversary. Dr. Ambedkar, as all of us know, is one of the greatest sons that India has produced. I express my deep appreciation to Dr. Ambedkar International Center for organizing Dr. Ambedkar memorial lecture series and also for giving me an opportunity to give the first Dr. Ambedkar memorial lecture.

When we celebrate the birth anniversary of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, we recount his contribution in various fields. All of us know that he had a very multifaceted personality. His contributions to various fields are numerous. All of us know that he was a great economist. He was a social reformer. He fought for emancipation of downtrodden. He was an educationist. He established one of the first institutions in the backward regions of Vidarbha, of Aurangabad, Marathwada to cater to the needs of the router. He was a great sociologist. He had a deep knowledge of various religions. He was a great lawyer himself. However, he could not pursue law much on account of his devotion to the cause to which he had dedicated himself. But all of us will always recognize his greatest contribution as a chief architect of the constitution of India.

And therefore, when Dr. Akash Patil contacted me a couple of months back to invite me to attend an event in the Dr. Ambedkar International Center, I suggested him to organize an event on the birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar. I have the view that there can be no better way to pay tribute to him than remembering his contribution in framing up the constitution of India.

I've been allotted 30 minutes, and though it will not be sufficient even to cursorily touch upon the subject in the time allotted to me, I will try to refer to some of his speeches in the Constituent Assembly and cursorily touch upon his contribution to the greatest document that all of us worship, the constitution of India. All of us know that Dr. Ambedkar had lost the elections to the Constituent Assembly from the then province of Bengal, which now is a part of Bangladesh. Thereafter, he was brought to the Constituent Assembly from the Bombay Presidency. When he entered the Constituent Assembly, the only goal that he was having was to protect the interest of the Scheduled Castes, the Shudras, and the Antyajas. He did not know at that point of time that he would be given the enormous task of drafting the Indian constitution.

The Constituent Assembly began its proceedings on 13th of December 1946, with the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru presenting the Objectives Resolution, providing therein the aims and objectives for which the Constituent Assembly was established. Dr. Dr. Ambedkar, as per his turn, would have got an opportunity only after seven or eight days to speak, but Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the president of the Constituent Assembly, called upon him on the 17th of December 1946 itself to give his address in the Constituent Assembly on the Objectives Resolution. Dr. Ambedkar said that he was not prepared because he thought that his turn would come about 4 days afterwards. But the vision that he had for the future of India, though he was not knowing at that point of time that he would be given the task of drafting the constitution, as to what India would be, is reflected in his very speech made on 17th of December 1946. Paragraphs five and seven of the Objectives Resolution referred to the fundamental rights and sought to safeguard and protect the rights of the backward classes, the minorities, etc. Dr. Ambedkar said that there was no controversy with regard to these objectives, but he observed, and I quote, "these paragraphs five and seven set out the objectives of the future constitution of this country. I must confess that coming as the resolution does from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who is a reputed socialist, this resolution, although non-controversial to my mind, is very disappointing," unquote. He said that when one reads that part of the resolution, it reminds one of the Declaration of the Rights of Man which was pronounced by the French Constituent Assembly 450 years back. And he said that by passage of time, there was no necessity for declaration of such rights. It is presumed that such rights are inherent for existence of a dignified human life. He said, and I quote this, that "these principles have become the silent immaculate premise of our outlook. It is therefore unnecessary to proclaim it as forming a part of our creed," unquote. He spoke about one of the most challenges that he thought. He said that besides the resolution suffered from certain other lacunas, and I quote him, "I find this part of the resolution, although it enunciates certain rights, does not speak of remedies. All of us are aware of the fact that rights are nothing unless remedies are provided whereby people can seek to obtain redress when rights are invaded," and he found a complete absence of remedies, unquote. He further stated that there are certain issues with the Objectives Resolutions that were left to the sole discretion of the executive, and he said, I can quote him. So there are here certain provisions which speak of justice, economic, social, and political. If this resolution has a reality behind it and a sincerity of which I have not the least doubt, coming at as it does from the mover of the resolution, I should have expected some more provisions whereby it would have been possible for the state to make economic, social and political justice a reality, and I should have from that point of view expected the resolution to state, to state in the most explicit terms, so that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that there will be nationalization of industry and nationalization of land, unquote. Therefore, we find that the seeds of one of the most important articles in the constitution, that is Article 32, finds its foundation in his maiden speech before the Constituent Assembly. And so also the provenance of Part Four of the constitution, that is the Directive Principles, finds its foundation in the first speech.

Though Dr. Ambedkar had suffered a lot on account of untouchability, he did not carry the baggage of that bitterness while working in the Constituent Assembly. He was always of the view that above anything is the nation. He always advocated for the unity of the nation. He said, and I quote, "Today we are divided politically, socially, and economically. We are a group of warring camps, and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably one of the leaders of such a camp." Dr. Ambedkar did not feel shy of speaking about the background of the framing of the constitution which had preceded the history of the fight for independence, Indian independence. It also preceded the fight for social and economic equality by the millions of people who are deprived of their basic rights, and therefore he said that with all our caste and creeds, it shall be very difficult to unite all the people. He was making a reference with regard to the boycott by the Muslim League on the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, and he said that we must make an attempt to bring back the Muslim League in the main frame and frame a constitution which will be acceptable to one and all, including the Muslim League. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Then another important aspect that we must find in this first speech is with regard to the center-state relationships. In the Objectives Resolution which was proposed by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, a constitution on the American pattern was proposed, wherein a separate constitution would be there for the federal government, and there would be separate constitutions for the provinces as well as the princely states. He said that though paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 were not of controversial nature, but paragraph 3 was certainly of controversial nature, and he said, I quote, "but I take it that after the resolution is passed, it will act as a sort of a directive to the Constituent Assembly to frame a constitution in terms of para 3 of the resolution. What does para 3 say? Perhaps three says that in this country there shall be two different sets of polity. One at the bottom, autonomous provinces or the states or such other areas as were to join a united India. These autonomous units will have full power. They will also have residuary powers. At the top, or the provincial unit, in units, there will be a union government having certain subjects for legislation, for execution, and for administration. As I read this part of the resolution, I do not find any reference to the idea of grouping, an intermediate structure between the union on the one hand and the province on the other. And therefore, the provisions which are there in the constitution with regard to center and state relations also find their seats in his very first speech." He further stated that, and I quote, "I must confess that I am a great deal of surprised at the absence of any reference to the idea of grouping of provinces. So far as I'm personally concerned, I do not like the idea of grouping. I like a strong united center, much stronger than the center we had created under the Government of India Act 1935," unquote. Dr. Ambedkar, as I already said, was always for a united India, and the interest of the nation was to be above all interests, be the interest of the individuals, be the interest of any caste, or be the interest of any ideology, and therefore he expressed his concern and asked the question, and I quote, "Why did not the mover of the resolution make reference to the idea of a union of provinces or grouping of provinces on the terms on which he and his party was prepared to accept it? Why is the idea of union completely erased from this resolution?" unquote. And then I will refer to one of the most important sentences he made in his maiden speech. And he, I quote him, "When deciding the destinies of nations, dignities of people, dignities of leaders, and dignities of parties ought to count for nothing. The destiny of the country ought to count for everything," unquote, and his with view and his view with regard to supremacy of the interest of the nation could be also gathered from one of his other speeches, and I quote, "The common goal is the building up of the feeling that we are all Indians. I do not like what some people say that we are Indians first and Hindus afterwards and Muslims afterwards. I'm not satisfied with that. I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty, whether that loyalties arise out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indians last, and nothing else but [Applause] Indians."

At the time of making his speech on 17th of December 1946, Dr. Ambedkar did not know that he would not only be a part of the Drafting Committee but also its chairman. The Objectives Resolution was passed with various amendments. India got its freedom on 15th of August 1947. Within 12 days thereafter, the Constituent Assembly elected Dr. Ambedkar initially as a member of the Drafting Committee and thereafter as the chairman of the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee took around seven or eight months to finalize the draft, which was finally initially prepared by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and a final draft was submitted to the president of India on 21st of February 1948. The draft which was submitted initially consisted of 315 articles and eight schedules. The draft constitution was kept in the public domain for inviting objections for almost 8 months. And after considering these objections, the Drafting Committee revised the draft and presented the revised draft on 4th of November 1948. In the revised draft, after considering the objections from various objectives, the number of articles grew to 395 with eight schedules. It will be relevant to note that during the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, there were 7,635 amendments that were proposed, and out of them actually 2,473 amendments were discussed at length in the Constituent Assembly, with most of the replies being given by Dr. Ambedkar, Dr. Krishnamachari, and Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. In this light, therefore, it will be relevant to refer to Dr. Ambedkar's speech on 4th of November 1948 in the Constituent Assembly when he presented the final draft of the Indian constitution to the Constituent Assembly for discussion. In this speech, he refers to the history of the Constituent Assembly, the meetings of various committees, the first draft prepared by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, thereafter the final draft, and subsequently he placed various provisions of the constitution which were finalized by the Drafting Committee for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly. He said that as a student of constitutional law, when presented with the constitution, two questions are to be asked. Firstly, what is the form of the government that is envisaged in the constitution, and secondly, what is the form of the constitution? In so far as the first question is concerned, Dr. Ambedkar said that we'll have a president at the helm of the affairs of the nation, similar to the president of the United States of America, but he stated that the similarity ends at that as the president of India is not similar to the president of the United States of America, since in the American form of government the presidential system of government is dominant, but what the draft constitution proposed was a parliamentary system, and he said that while doing so they have to take into consideration two conditions that a democratic executive must satisfy. Firstly, it must be a stable executive, and secondly, it must be a responsible executive. He said that if we accept the presidential form of constitution, there would be more stability but lesser responsibility. And if one accepts a parliamentary form, there will be lesser stability but more responsibility. And therefore, Dr. Ambedkar said that while framing the Indian constitution, they had attempted to achieve a balance between the both. He refers to the American and Swiss systems wherein there is more stability and lesser responsibilities because under the presidential system the president of the executive is not answerable to the Senate or to the Congress, and they are only answerable to the populace when they seek re-election. However, he said that the British model wherein the executive is responsible to the parliament from time to time is more suitable to Indian conditions. Dr. Ambedkar said that in the parliamentary system the assessment is done regularly by the members of parliament through questions, resolutions, no-confidence motions, adjournment motions, and debates on addresses, and equally periodic assessment is done by the electorate at the time of the elections which may take place every five years or so. He said that the regular assessment of the responsibility which is not available under the American system is found to be more far effective than the system of responsibility which is only at the end of the term.

Then the second question he answered was as to the form of the constitution, that is whether the constitution was unitary or federal. He stated that the essential characteristics of a unitary constitution are: one, the supremacy of the central polity; two, the absence of subsidiary sovereign polities. Per contra, the essentials of a federal constitution are: one, the existence of a central polity and subsidiary polities side by side as proposed by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru; and two, each being sovereign in the field assigned to it. Under the federal constitution, there is a concept of dual citizenship, as a person who is a citizen of the United States of America is also a citizen of a particular state, like he's also a citizen of New York. Dr. Ambedkar said that for a country like India, we must have a combination of both, and there proposed that under the Indian constitution the polity will consist of the union at the center and the states at the periphery, each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the constitution. Dr. Ambedkar pointed out that just like in the American constitution also a legislative function is assigned to both the Indian parliament and the state legislatures, but the similarities between the Indian and the American constitution will end at that. He said that under the Indian constitution there would be only one citizenship of a person, and wherever he resides, he would only be a citizen of India and not, for instance, a citizen of Maharashtra or a citizen of Telangana. He said that if we have dual citizenships, then a person who is entitled to a certain right in one of the states would not be entitled to said rights in another state, and therefore if the assembly accepted it, it would be opposed to the equality doctrine that the assembly had already accepted to approve, and therefore he strongly supported the principle of one citizenship. He introduced a concept that the state legislatures and the central legislatures will have exclusive rights to legislate in the fields assigned to them. The earlier proposal was that whatever subjects are not included either in the state list or the union list would be left to the provincial governments. He said that in a unitary polity that we propose to accept, this proposal would go against the purpose to be achieved by us. He therefore entered a third list, that is the concurrent list, wherein the state as well as the union parliament would have a right to legislate on the fields in the concurrent lists. However, in case of a conflict, the central legislation will prevail upon the state legislature. And then he said that to keep the country united at the time of crisis, like emergency, whether internal or external, the central parliament would take over the powers of the state legislatures and legislate on the subjects which are specifically earmarked for the state legislatures. Dr. Ambedkar said that this was necessary to keep the country united at the times of crisis and that the center should be strong to keep the country united. Dr. Ambedkar said that the constitution has provided for a single judiciary, unlike the American system.

India has a single judiciary wherein the Supreme Court and the high courts form part of the same system, and in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary, the subordinate trial courts in the state are kept under the control of the state high courts.

Dr. Ambar said that to achieve the unity of the country, it is necessary that though the states will have the freedom to have their services, it is also necessary that some of the services which are essential to keep the country united or are on an all-India basis, and therefore we have services like the Indian soil services earlier, which now is the Indian administrative service, or Indian police service, or the Indian forest service, Indian foreign service, and various all-India services.

Another aspect that requires mention is with regard to the power to amend the constitution. Dr. Ambedkar always believed that the constitution had to be an organic, evolving one, and it would—it could not be a static document. He said that the generations after generation cannot be bound by the same constitution. With the changing needs of society, every generation must have the power to adopt or to amend the constitution to suit the needs of the changing times, and therefore, for most of the articles, the amending power permits an amendment by two-thirds of the majority of the members sitting in the house, which shall not be less than half of the total membership of both the houses. In so far as some certain important articles are concerned, like the central-state relations, the independence of the judiciary, the fundamental rights, etc., a special provision for affecting such amendment—of having a ratification by half of the state legislatures—was provided. He stated that by doing so the constitution will be strong at the same time elastic and not rigid.

In the same speech, Dr. Ambedkar also advocated for constitutional morality. He submitted that we must realize that in India people are yet to learn about constitutional morality, but with the democracy that we are going—ourselves giving to ourselves—it was necessary that we must adapt to the changing needs to address the constitutional principles. In so far as fundamental rights are concerned, the constitution enables that along with the fundamental rights, the legislature will be able to enact laws to provide for certain restrictions which are found necessary.

A criticism was made by one of the members that fundamental rights should be absolute, and if there have to be any restrictions, then the same should be provided only by the constitution, and it should not be left to the legislators to do so. Dr. Ambedkar did not agree with the said suggestion, referring to the American system. Dr. Ambedkar stated that in the United States of America, the Congress had found that it was absolutely essential to qualify the fundamental rights by limitation. However, when the question arose before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the constitution gave no power to the United States Congress to impose such limitation. However, the Supreme Court of America invented the doctrine of police power to negate the said challenge. Dr. Ambedkar therefore said that what the Constitution has done is that instead of formulating fundamental rights in absolute terms and depending upon the Supreme Court to come to the rescue of Parliament by inventing the doctrine of police power, it permits the state directly to impose limitations upon the fundamental rights. There’s no difference in the result—what one does directly, the other does indirectly. In both the cases, the fundamental rights are not absolute, and we find that within a year of the adoption of the constitution, the judgment in AK Gopalan’s case, along with the other judgments, gave rise to the very first amendment to the constitution. In AK Gopalan, it was held that anything said except waging a war against the country was protected by the fundamental rights.

There were allegations made against Dr. Ambedkar that directive principles are nothing else but a pious declaration having no binding force. Replying to the said criticisms, he said these directive principles have also come up for criticism. It is said that they are only pious declarations; there is no binding force. This criticism is, of course, superfluous. The constitution itself says so in so many words. If it is said that the directive principles have no legal force behind them, I’m prepared to admit it. But I am not prepared to admit that they have no sort of binding force at all. Nor am I prepared to concede that they are useless because they have no binding force in law. He said that the directive principles are like an instrument of instructions to the executives and legislators who will be discharging their duties in the future. He said that we are not drafting the constitution to enable a particular party to come into power. Rather, we are drafting the constitution to provide what would be the polity in the future and for guidance to the executive and administration, and I quote him, “But whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with it. In the exercise of it, he will have to respect these instruments of instructions which are called the directive principles. He cannot ignore them. He may not have to answer for their breach in a court of law. But he’ll be certainly have to answer for them before the electorate at election time. What great value these directive principles possess will be realized better when the forces of right contrive to capture power.” unquote.

Some of the critics have criticized that under the draft constitution the center was too strong; on the other hand, a criticism was also made that it should be more stronger. Replying to both criticisms, Dr. Ambedkar stated that the draft constitution has struck a balance. He said, and I quote, “However much you may deny powers to the center, it is difficult to prevent the center from becoming strong. Conditions in the modern world are such that all centralization of power is inevitable.” Finally, he said that the draft constitution which was prepared was workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and in wartime.

In the journey of the last 75 years, we have noticed that one of the most important articles of the constitution is Article 32. As I said in the beginning, Dr. Ambedkar referred to it in his very first speech, stating that the fundamental rights without a provision to have a recourse to remedy is without any substance, and therefore, when Article 32—which is Article 25 in the draft constitution—came to be discussed, there was a lengthy—there were lengthy discussions. Some were of the opinion that it was not necessary to name these writs in Article 32; it was also argued that the writs could also be enforced by taking recourse to the provisions of the Specific Performance Act and so on. However, Dr. Ambedkar negatived all these contentions and observed—this I quote now—“Sir, I’m very glad that the majority of those who spoke on this article have realized the importance and significance of this article. If I were asked to name any particular article in this constitution as the most important—an article without which the constitution would be analytic—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, and I’m glad that the house has realized its importance.” unquote. He said that hereafter it would not be possible for any legislature to take away the rights which are mentioned in Article 32, and I quote him, “It is not the Supreme Court—it is not that the Supreme Court is left to be invested with the powers to issue these writs by law to be made by the legislature at its sweet will. The constitution has invested the Supreme Court with these rights, and these writs could not be taken away unless and until the constitution itself is amended by means left open to the legislature. This is my judgment. This, in my judgment, is one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individuals.” unquote. And as we know now that by subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court, Article 32 has been held to be the basic structure of the constitution which cannot be even incurred—even by the amendment of the constitution.

It will be apt to refer to Dr. Ambedkar’s words, and I quote, “If there’s no remedy, there’s no right at all. And I’m therefore not prepared to burden the constitution with a number of pious declarations which may sound as glittering—glittering generalities—but for which the constitution makes no provisions by way of remedy.”

There are various other speeches and debates in the period of two years and nine months, and finally, after accepting the various amendments and rejecting other amendments, Dr. Ambedkar presented the final draft to the Constituent Assembly. It is a matter of record that most of the amendments which were accepted by Dr. Ambedkar and his colleagues were accepted by the house, and those which were opposed by them came to be rejected on 25th of November 1949.

One of the most important speeches was delivered by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly that every student of constitutional law must read through thoroughly. He refers to the history of the drafting committee, then to the criticism by one of the members—whom I would not like to name—who said that the drafting committee was nothing but a drifting committee. Dr. Ambedkar said that he takes it as a compliment, though he knew that it was not a compliment. He said that drifting with mastery and with an aim is like a compliment. Then there were certain criticisms by the socialists who wanted the fundamental rights to be absolute and without restrictions. Dr. Ambedkar answered this criticism by stating that socialists, if they come to power, would like to nationalize all the properties of the private individuals, and if they don’t come to power, they want to have an absolute right to speak anything against the government. He criticized the communist-communalist, saying that if the communalist ideology is accepted, the very concept of liberty, equality, and fraternity that we want to achieve would be thrown away in the dustbin.

Dr. Ambedkar was a great man. Responding to the rich compliments he was showered with, he humbly stated that he could not take the entire credit and that the credit goes firstly to Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, the constitutional advisor who prepared the rough draft, and then to Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who was the chief draftsman of the constitution, and then to two of his most eminent colleagues, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Sir N Gopalaswami Ayyangar. Dr. Ambedkar said that when he was initially made a member of the assembly, he was not aware that he would be there on the drafting committee because his sole aim was to enter the Constituent Assembly was to protect the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the backward classes. He said that after coming into the drafting committee, he was not aware that he would be made its chairman. He said that the said office ought to have been adorned by another imminent constitutionalist such as Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. He said that he was surprised that he was made to chair the committee. He further said that all the amendments proposed—the answers and replies were given by the three of them, and therefore, he said that whatever credit the Constituent Assembly was giving him, he was not the only person to whom the credit should be given, and it belonged to the entire committee.

As all of us know that some of the members who had stakes in the provincial governments and also who wanted the provincial governments to be stronger criticized the stronger Indian government. Answering their criticism, Dr. Ambedkar did, and I quote, “A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too much of centralization and that the states have been reduced to municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what exactly the constitution contrives to do. As to the relationship between the center and the states, it is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principles on which it rests. The basic principle of federalism is that the legislature and the legis—the legislative and the executive authority is partitioned between the center and the states not by any law to be made by the center but by the constitution itself. This is what the constitution does. The states under our constitution are in no way dependent upon the center for their legislative or executive authority. The center and states are co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a constitution could be called as a centralism.” He further states that it may be that the residuary powers are given to the center and not to the states, but these features do not form the essence of the federalism. The chief mark of federalism, as I said, lies in the partition of the legislative and the executive authority between the center and the union by the constitution.

Dr. Ambedkar stated that the second charge against the draft constitution is that the center has been given the power to override the states. He explained that such a power is not given in normal circumstances but is given only in times of crisis—that may be external war or internal disturbances—and this was necessary to keep the country united, and I quote him, “There can be no doubt that in the opinion of the vast majority of the people, the residuary loyalty of the citizen in an emergency must be to the center and not to the constituent states, for it is only the center which can work for a common end and for the general interest of the country as a whole. Herein lies the justification for giving to the center overriding powers to be used in emergency.” unquote. He refers to Indian history as to how many times we were invaded and how many times we lost our freedom. And he warns us that the freedom we have got and the democracy that we are so liberally giving to ourselves should not be permitted to be again taken away as has happened in the past, and therefore, he said that what we must do is not to be contented by a mere political democracy. Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it a social democracy, and I quote him, “What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which realizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life, and these principles are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality. Equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill the individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural cause of things.” And therefore, he wants us to recognize the principle of fraternity. And I quote him, “What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians—Indians being one people. It is a principle that gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve. How difficult it is can be realized by a story from James Bryce,” and he refers to that story. He refers to the social and economic inequalities in the country and states, and I quote him, “We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there’s a complete absence of two things in Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principles of graded inequality, which means elevation for some and degradation for others. On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we have—we will have equality, and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one value. In our social and economic life we shall, by reasons of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life in contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we’ll do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove these contradictions at the earliest possible moment, or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this constitution has so laboriously built up.”

On 26th January 2025, we have completed 75 years from the date on which we have given ourselves the constitution on 25th of—26th of January 1950. Two years back, that is on 24th of April 2023, we have celebrated the golden jubilee of Kesavananda Bharati. We must pay our tribute to the framers of the constitution, also to the authors of the judgment who gifted this wonderful judgment. We celebrated the Amrut Mahotsav of the Indian constitution. When we look at the speeches of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made on 17th December 1946, 4th November 1948, and on 25th of November 1949, we’ll find as to what a great visionary he was. He had stated that the country would be strong and united in the time of peace as well as war. Though in the last 75 years the country has faced various external aggressions and internal disturbances, the country remained united and strong. When we compare ourselves with the neighboring countries, we would find as to how relevant his proposals were.

We have seen that in the last 75 years the constitution has been amended from time to time to adapt to the changing needs because the constitution is not a static document. It is not a rigid document, but at the same time we have seen that though the constitution has been amended to take into consideration the changing needs of every generation, the very basic structure of the constitution has not been permitted to be changed. Dr. Ambedkar was criticized from both the sides. On one hand, it was stated that the provisions to amend the constitution were made very easy, and on the other hand, it was said that the provisions to amend the constitution were very rigid. Dr. Ambedkar was criticized by the socialists and communists that the provisions to amend the constitution were very rigid. It was argued that it was difficult to get a two-thirds majority of the members present in both the houses and a simple majority of the total members. It was also argued that it was very difficult to get a ratification by half of the states’ state legislatures. It was therefore argued that such a rigid provision would not permit the constitution to adapt to the changing needs. Refuting the same arguments, he stated that no doubt that the constitution has to be organic and evolving, but at the same time, the very foundation on which the constitution rests could not be altered. Dr. Ambedkar said that today the Constituent Assembly was sitting as an independent body without having any political ideologies, without any political agenda. But if the power is given to the Parliament to amend the constitution very liberally, then the danger of a particular political party finding it difficult to implement its agenda—amending the constitution in order to implement its ideology—cannot be ruled out. He said that this could not be permitted. Dr. Ambedkar said that the Constituent Assembly, as an independent body, was providing a constitution which will be the foundation for the generations to come. Though a provision has to be made to adapt to the changing needs, the constitution cannot be permitted to be amended at the sweet will of the majority.

We find that though there was a long-standing debate on the issue of amending powers of the Parliament to amend the constitution in Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath and so on, but in Kesavananda Bharati, by a majority of 7 to 6, the Supreme Court held that though the Parliament has the power to amend the constitution and even take away the fundamental rights, but does not have the power to amend the basic structure of the constitution. As a matter of fact, the seeds of basic structure were sown in the case of Sajjan Singh, wherein Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Dua differed with the majority view on the amending powers of the constitution. Justice Hidayatullah said that he would require stronger reasons than the ones given in Shankari Prasad to hold that the amending powers of the constitution are unlimited. Justice Dua said that though the power to amend is implicit in the constitution, is it permissible to hold that the Parliament also has the power to take away the basic features of the constitution? Though Kesavananda Bharati is known for its decision on the amending powers of the constitution, as I referred to earlier speeches of Dr. Ambedkar, he had made a very strong emphasis on social and economic justice along with political justice as found in his very first speech, second speech, and third speech which I already elaborately referred to. He stated that unless we have social and economic equality, the political equality which was ensured by one person, one vote, one value would all be without any substance, and the democracy which we have so laboriously given to ourselves will collapse like an edifice of cards, and therefore, he introduced the directive principles, that is Part IV of the constitution.

All of us know that criticism was made that this is nothing else but a declaration of pious obligation. But he said no. He said, "I'm sure that every government which would be in power will be dictated by the instructions in directive principles which will guide the executive and the legislature—legislative action." And therefore, we find that right from 1947, various enactments have been enacted to further the aims and objects of the directive principles, like the ceilings act, like the restoration of the lands to the shulu cast, shu tribes, and so on.

Though the initial view of the Supreme Court in various cases—be it Bank National case or the Maharaja Madas Sinja's case—was that in the case of conflict between the fundamental rights and the directive principles, the directive principles will have to give way to the fundamental rights, this view has been turned down by Keshavananda Bharati. And therefore, though the Keshavananda Bharati decision requires celebration for two important milestones—one with regard to the basic structure doctrine and secondly for giving due importance to the directive principles of state policy—though there's a sharp division of six to seven with regard to the amending powers of the constitution, there's almost unanimity in all the views expressed in Keshavananda Bharati on the importance of directive principles.

Due to positive constraints of time, it will not be possible for me to refer to the observations made by the various judges in the said judgment. I have elaborately referred to them in my speeches on the topic of importance of directive principles in the Indian constitution. Though I would not like to go into detail, I would only refer to the Sis Chand in Venor Bill case, where you notice that the directive principles and the fundamental rights are like two wheels of a golden chariot of the constitution. It has been held that if you snap one wheel of the chariot, the efficacy of the entire chariot will come to a standstill. In Keshavananda Bharati, it was said that the directive principles and fundamental rights together are the soul of the constitution of India. And therefore, the importance of directive principles has been duly recognized by Keshavananda Bharati.

When we study the journey of the Indian constitution thereafter for the last five decades, we find that the role of Indian constitutional courts—that is, the Supreme Court and all the various high courts—have always been in tune with upholding of the enactments or actions taken in furtherance of the directive principles. Many enactments have been appealed, though they were found to be inconsistent with fundamental rights. You also see that various rights which are not recognized in Chapter Three have been evolved by the Supreme Court and the high courts by linking them to the directive principles and Article 21, like the right to privacy, right to dignity in life (in the case of Maneka Gandhi), or right to education (in the case of Mohini Jain or Unnikrishnan), which was later brought out in the constitution by way of an amendment, or right to health (as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti) as well as right to food, right to potable water, and in many cases, right to pollution-free environment (in M.C. Mehta), right to green environment (in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad), and so on. We therefore find that the journey of the last 75 years of the working of the constitution by all the organs—that is, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary—has been satisfactory in implementing the constitutional mandate of Part Four.

As a matter of fact, I recollect that Justice Mathew in Keshavananda Bharati said that the courts are also a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. And therefore, when they impart justice, they are also bound to follow the mandate of directive principles. Therefore, to say that the journey of 75 years has not been satisfactory, in my view, would be unjust to the efforts of the constitutional makers, the efforts of the executive, the efforts of the legislature, and the efforts of the judiciary.

The extraordinary contribution of Dr. Ambedkar has been secondly stated by one of his contemporaries, Titi Krishnamachari, a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly who later held the position of India's prime minister and finance minister, and I quote him from his speech on the 5th of November 1948: "I am aware of the amount of work and enthusiasm that he has brought to bear on the work of the drafting of the constitution. The house is perhaps aware that of the seven members nominated by you, one had resigned from the house and was replaced; one died and was not replaced; one was in America and his place was not filled up; and another person was engaged in state affairs and there was a void to that extent; one or two people were far away from Delhi and perhaps the reasons of health did not permit them to attend. So it happened ultimately that the burden of drafting this constitution fell on Dr. Ambedkar, and I have no doubt that we are grateful to him for having achieved this work in a manner which is undoubtedly commendable." Unquote.

In the Constituent Assembly, after the final draft was presented, rich compliments were paid to Dr. Ambedkar for his contribution. Since we celebrate Dr. Ambedkar's contribution in the framing of the constitution, I find it necessary to refer to some of them. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya stated, and I quote: "Our doctor, our friend, Dr. Ambedkar has gone away, else I should have liked to tell him what a steamroller intellect he brought to bear upon the magnificent and tremendous task. Irresistible, indomitable, unconquerable, leveling down tall palms and short poppies, wherever he felt to be right, he stood by regardless of consequences." Unquote.

Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar states that, "Before I conclude, I would be failing my duty if I do not express my high appreciation of the skill and ability with which my friend, the honorable Dr. Ambedkar, has piloted this constitution and his untiring work as a chairman of the drafting committee." Unquote.

K.M. Munshi from Satara states that some of the members, while congratulating Dr. Ambedkar, referred to him as Manu, and Dr. Ambedkar had a great hatred for Manu. He stated that they call him Manu, and make it known to the public that he has framed Bhima's prarthana. I also call it Bhimsi, though I belong to the Sarna class. I, Dr. Ambedkar, is a great lawyer and a man of great ability and intellect. Nobody will doubt that. I would quote Mahavir: "I stand today face to face with the picture of my old, old dreams and fruits of my strenuous labors of 30 years. A concrete picture, picture is before us. Dr. Ambedkar was the main artist, has laid aside his brush and unveiled the picture for the people to see and comment upon."

Mr. K.T. Shah, with whom Dr. Ambedkar had serious disputes on various issues, stated that, and I quote: "Therefore, I do not have any fundamental differences with him, and for the greatest service that he has done to this country within the period of these three years in framing the constitution, he deserves congratulations." There are many other speeches; however, due to paucity of time, I will not refer to all of them.

Lastly, I would refer to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who in his concluding speech on 26th of November 1949 states, and I quote him: "Sitting in the chair and watching the proceedings from day to day, I have realized, as nobody could have, with what zeal and devotion the members of the drafting committee and especially its chairman, Dr. Ambedkar, in spite of his indifferent health, have worked. We could never make a decision which was or could be ever so right as when we put him on the drafting committee and made him its chairman. He has not only justified his selection but has added luster to the work which he has done." Unquote. Dr. Rajendra Prasad has also recognized the contribution of other members of the Constituent Assembly and said that their untiring work has given this valuable piece of constitution, and he ends by saying that all the members of the Constituent Assembly, especially Dr. Ambedkar, deserved the thanks of the nation.

Dr. Nelson Mandela, whose contribution for the freedom movement in South Africa is known to all of us, he refers the work of Dr. Ambedkar and states, and I quote: "The Indian constitution provides inspiration in preparation of a new South African constitution. We hope that our efforts in formulation of a new constitution will reflect the work and ideals of this great son of India. Dr. Ambedkar's contribution to social justice and to the upliftment of the oppressed is worthy of emulation." End quote.

And therefore, friends, when we celebrate the 134th birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar, whose initial entry in the Constituent Assembly was only to protect the interest of the shudra cast, the oppressed and the outcasts, we as a country have recognized his invaluable contribution in presenting to this country a constitution which has not only stood the test of time for the last 75 years, but it is a constitution that has kept India strong, stable, and united.

In furtherance of the aims and objects of social and economic justice, various enactments have been enacted. The said enactments have been upheld by the courts. Lacs of acres of lands have been distributed to the landless laborers. Thousands and millions of tenants who are tilling the soil have become the owners of the land. Lacs of acres of land belonging to Shudras and Shudra tribes have been restored to them. Various enactments in furtherance of the rights of the laborers have been enacted.

Not only that, but the Supreme Court, acting proactively, has given directions in cases like the state of Kerala with regard to minimum wages, and we find that in the last 75 years, the country which was ridden with caste, creed, and religion has witnessed giving two presidents who belong to the Shudra caste: Sri K.R. Narayanan and Sri Ram Nath Kovind. The country has given us two women presidents: the first one being Smt. Pratibha Patil and the second one being Smt. Droupadi Murmu, who also has been the first Shudra caste president. The country has given two speakers who belong to the Shudra caste: Mr. G.M.C. Balayogi and Ms. Meira Kumar. It has also given two women speakers again: Smt. Meira Kumar and Smt. Sumitra Mahajan.

Dr. Ambedkar always said that the women in the country are more oppressed than the Dalits, and he therefore stated that furtherance of their upliftment was also a basic necessity. You have had a woman prime minister, Indira Gandhi. We had hundreds of IAS officers, IPS officers, chief secretaries, director generals of police belonging to Shudra caste, Shudra tribes, and OBCs. We have had the first Dalit Chief Justice of India, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. The country is having a prime minister who comes from a humble background, belonging to a backward class, and who takes pride in saying that it is because of the constitution of India that he could be a part of, who could be a prime minister of India.

Speaking for myself, I was fortunate to have been born to a father who worked with Dr. Ambedkar and served as one of his soldiers in the fight for social and economic justice. I'm here only because of Dr. Ambedkar and the constitution of India. Let us pay our tribute and homage to the great son of the soil, one of the greatest and most eminent personalities the world has ever produced, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and thank him and the makers of the constitution for giving India such a wonderful constitution. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I'm grateful to you for bearing with me for a long speech. Thank you. [Applause]

Ladies and gentlemen, my job is to propose a vote of thanks. I am sure we all have been illuminated by the thoughts of the honorable justice on such an important topic on this auspicious day. And as the honorable justice has said, sir, we will also take all our steps in taking the values of Baba Sahib not only domestically but also internationally. I would like to thank all those who are present here. My special thanks goes to the honorable justice Prasanna Varaji for being here. I am very thankful to the Supreme Court Bar Association, the president, vice president, all the Delhi High Court Association presidents, vice presidents. We have a lot of presence from the honorable advocates, lawyers, and especially the students who have come here to listen to the honorable justice Gaw. Once again, sincere thanks from Dr. Ambedkar International Centre. May I request you all to rise for the national anthem. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. [Music] Jai Hind. Jai Hind.