What Has Modified within the Structure and Why: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave Explains

On January 27, 2026, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave delivered the twenty seventh Dr Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture in Mumbai on the ‘Structure of India as conceived by its framers and its modern interpretation‘. Chaired by Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, the lecture examined the erosion of constitutional morality, the weakening of parliamentary democracy and the rising centralisation of energy in India’s political system.

Drawing extensively from the Constituent Meeting debates and the writings of the primary legislation minister, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Dave traced how government dominance, legislative majoritarianism, and judicial retreat have collectively altered the constitutional stability envisioned on the time of independence. Under is the complete textual content of the speech, edited barely for readability.

● ● ●

Good night everybody,

Mr Aspi Chinoy; indomitable and extremely revered former colleague Mr Irfan Engineer; distinguished members of the Asghar Ali Engineer household; women and gents.

I really feel deeply privileged to be invited to this twenty seventh memorial lecture in reminiscence of Late Asghar Ali Engineer. He was not simply a tutorial, a reformist, a author and a social activist, however was probably the most liberal thinkers on theology in Islam. He was effectively recognised and effectively learn on communalism and its ugly face in India and South East Asia. He advocated peace and non-violence with communal concord alongside Gandhian rules. As head of the Indian Institute of Islamic Research and Centre for Research of Society and Secularism based by him, he made immense contributions. He was really an ideal nationalist and an ideal Indian who left an enduring impression on the minds of hundreds of thousands.

The subject for this night is most related for our nation at present: “The structure as envisioned by its framers and its modern interpretation.” I want to make a slight change to it, together with your permission, Mr Chinoy: “The structure as envisioned by its framers and its full perversion in modern occasions.”

I’m not saying this. Dr [B.R.] Ambedkar stated these prophetic phrases as early as November 4, 1948:

Whereas everyone recognises the need of the diffusion of constitutional morality for the peaceable working of a democratic structure, there are two issues interconnected with it which aren’t, sadly, typically recognised. One is that the type of administration has an in depth reference to the type of the structure. The type of the administration have to be applicable to and in the identical sense because the type of the structure. The opposite is that it’s completely doable to pervert the structure, with out altering its kind by merely altering the type of the administration and to make it inconsistent and against the spirit of the structure.

How true his phrases had been is clear from how the present type of the federal government is. I’ll dilate on that a little bit later.

However why was Dr Ambedkar so skeptical about at present’s India 78 years in the past? As a result of he felt that there was an entire absence of constitutional morality, not [just] amongst nearly all of any group however all through the entire society. By constitutional morality, he meant:

A paramount reverence for the types of the structure, imposing obedience to authority performing below and inside these kinds – but mixed with the behavior of open speech, of motion topic solely to particular authorized management, and unrestrained censure of these very authorities as to all their public acts. Mixed, too, with an ideal confidence within the bosom of each citizen, amidst the bitterness of celebration contest, that the types of the structure is not going to be much less sacred within the eyes of his opponents than in his personal.

He was of the opinion that constitutionalism will not be a pure sentiment, but it surely have to be cultivated, as he felt that our folks had but to be taught it. He bitterly stated:

Democracy in India is simply a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is basically undemocratic.

What can we see round us at present, as we did between 1975 and 1977, through the declared Emergency imposed by Mrs Indira Gandhi? We’re witnessing an undeclared emergency at present, in response to me. However I request every of you to ponder, introspect on it, as each citizen should.

The framers [of the Constitution of India] selected parliamentary democracy over a presidential type of authorities as a result of they most popular “extra accountability to extra stability”. In a parliamentary democracy, the evaluation of the accountability of the Govt is each every day and periodic. The every day evaluation is finished by members of parliament, via questions, resolutions, No-Confidence Motions, Adjournment Motions and debates on addresses. Periodic evaluation is finished by the voters on the time of elections, which can happen each 5 years or earlier.

Ambedkar thought {that a} parliamentary government extra dependent upon a majority in parliament additionally turns into extra accountable.

How mistaken historical past has proved him! Little did he realise that man would turn into so vile as he had solely feared. Immediately, neither a every day impartial evaluation is feasible nor periodic. The bulk in parliament thinks it [the minority] have to be subservient to the federal government, regardless of how unconstitutionally or illegally the federal government behaves. It stands up and shouts in a single voice, helps in unison and stays silent to all wrongs.

The opposition is equally to be blamed in failing to conduct itself in a significant and accountable method. They’re simply not in a position to nook the federal government for its omissions and commissions of their every day evaluation. Walkouts and shouting hardly assist to maintain democracy vibrant and safe.

Resultantly, the federal government can go any legislation it needs, largely with out severe debates in parliament, for instance, the farm legal guidelines.

On a extra severe word, the Citizenship Modification Act, 2019, the brand new legal legal guidelines launched in 2023, the Illegal Actions Prevention (Modification) Act, 2019 (UAPA), the Nationwide Capital Territories (Modification) Act, 2023, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the Waqf (Modification) Act, 2025, the Digital Knowledge Safety Act, 2023, the electoral bonds scheme via the Finance Act, are some examples of majoritarianism suppressing elementary and different authorized rights of residents.

However extra severe is the fallout of those legal guidelines. The Govt, via legislative companies and police in Bharatiya Janata Occasion (BJP)-ruled states, is critically endangering the freedom and freedom of residents in myriad methods.

From faux encounters to bulldozer demolitions; from wrongful arrests below draconian legal guidelines like UAPA to arresting critics and stand-up comedians for criticising the federal government or its leaders. These actions have turned constitutional goals into nightmares.

The assaults on opposition leaders by misusing companies just like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) are supposed to convert India into “opposition-mukt Bharat” – or a one-party rule. No surprise, one ED director received three extensions, in violation of the principles of enterprise and a Supreme Courtroom judgement.

As towards this, members of the ruling celebration are by no means investigated, a lot much less arrested – maybe as a result of all of them stand purified by Ganga-snaan [dip in the holy Ganga]. And inside the celebration, any questionable politicians with pending instances had been additionally purified after sporting saffron scarves.

Is that this what the framers [of the constitution] had envisaged? Definitely not.

If the type of authorities is below assault, what concerning the type of the structure?

The framers selected the federal structure over the unitary structure with the fond hope of the existence of a central polity and subsidiary politics aspect by aspect, every sovereign within the area assigned to it. India [was] to have a federation with uniformity in all primary issues to make sure unity. So had been conceived the Union and the states.

Sure, below the structure, the centre has higher powers in particular and Emergency occasions, however in regular occasions, states take pleasure in full freedom as per the topics assigned to them. Ambedkar described this in these phrases:

One can due to this fact safely say that the Indian federation is not going to undergo from the faults of rigidity or legalism. Its distinguishing function is that it’s a versatile federation.

Nonetheless, what’s being witnessed within the final decade is an onslaught on opposition-ruled states via refined and direct strikes. If the Congress authorities abused Article 356 to dismiss opposition-ruled state governments for over 5 a long time, the BJP authorities at present has found ingenious methods to manage and stifle states dominated by opposition [parties].

The governors – from not approving legal guidelines handed by elected legislatures, in whole negation of democracy for an indefinite interval, to interfering in legislation and order and academic establishments – have turn into legal guidelines into themselves. They’re partisan in discharging their constitutional function and misuse their discretion.

The framers [of the constitution] had anticipated them to be “sagacious counsellors”. Ambedkar was categorical on the place: a governor had no features which he was required to discharge both in his discretion or in his particular person “judgement” and he should act on ministerial recommendation. To maintain him free from celebration politics, the framers selected a mannequin of appointment reasonably than the election mannequin. Once more, to cite Ambedkar:

If the structure stays in precept the identical as we intend that it needs to be, that the governor needs to be a purely constitutional governor, with no energy of interference within the administration of the province, then it appears to me fairly immaterial the place he’s nominated or elected.

But, with impunity, governors in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, amongst different states, have brazenly and unabashedly carried out themselves improperly, as if they’ve impartial powers. Thus, the central authorities has succeeded in subduing states if not stopping their [policy and legislative] endeavours.

Second, in monetary issues, states have been stifled, particularly after the introduction of the Items and Providers Tax (GST) which Shri [Narendra] Modi, as chief minister of Gujarat, had opposed for over a decade. States have little benefit of elevating revenues with the abolition of Gross sales Tax and Entry Tax legal guidelines.

There are credible reviews of a number of states not getting enough funds from the central pool, as additionally of delayed disbursements of such funds. These actions straight impinge on federalism, thus making a mockery of the type of the structure.

So, with the type of authorities as additionally the type of the structure being critically below assault, if not eroded, can the state of parliamentary democracy [remain] as was envisaged by the framers? In my opinion, no, the structure at present is actually not in motion as was envisioned, although it stays so in textbooks.

However are political events alone chargeable for their downfall?

In no way. We as residents have failed the framers. [We have] forgotten the sacrifices made by hundreds of thousands of Indians who laid down their lives within the wrestle for reaching freedom in 1947, who gave up their liberty, their wealth and their peace. How egocentric we have to be that in simply seven a long time we’ve got overpassed their biggest wrestle received by satyagraha and sacrifices, not by conflict.

Extra troublesome is the function of the judiciary. The framers gave us an impartial judiciary, conserving it away, as a lot as doable, from contact with the Govt. [Member of Constituent Assembly and independence activist] Ok.M. Munshi put it clearly when he stated:

It’s important that in a democracy the judiciary have to be there to regulate the variations between citizen and citizen, between state and state and even between the Authorities of India and states. If that independence will not be secured, I’m positive we’d quickly drift in the direction of totalitarianism… independence of the judiciary demarcates the road between the democratic methodology and the totalitarian methodology.

Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar known as the Supreme Courtroom “the inspiration stone of our liberty”. Dr Ambedkar, intervening, stated:

There is no such thing as a doubt that the Home [Constituent Assembly] normally, has agreed that the independence of the Judiciary from the Govt needs to be made as clear and particular as we might make it by legislation.

Rejecting apprehension that this may lead to creating “imperium in imperio”, Ambedkar stated, “We wish to give the Judiciary ample independence in order that it could actually act with out worry or favour of the Govt.”

Pocker Sahib [Badekkandy Pocker], a revered member [of the Constituent Assembly], had feared:

It’s of the best significance that the judges of the Supreme Courtroom shouldn’t be made to really feel that their existence or their appointment relies upon political issues or on the desire of the political celebration. Subsequently, it’s important that there needs to be enough safeguards towards political affect being delivered to bear on such appointments. In fact, if a choose owes his appointment to a political celebration, actually in the midst of his profession as a choose, additionally as an abnormal human being, he will definitely be certain to have some consideration for the political opinions of the authority that has appointed him.

How did he know that some, if not many, Supreme Courtroom judges, throughout Emergency and in latest occasions, can be like he had imagined?

Mr Ok.T. Shah [Member of the Constituent Assembly] went additional:

For my part, Sir, if I could say so with all respect, this structure concentrates a lot energy and affect within the fingers of the prime minister in regard to the appointment of judges, ambassadors, or governors to such an extent, that there’s each hazard to apprehend that the prime minister could turn into a dictator if he chooses to take action.

Shri [N. Gopalaswamy] Ayyangar had known as the judiciary a “watchdog of democracy” and stated, “That is the establishment which can protect these rights and safe to each citizen the rights which have been given to him below the structure. Subsequently, naturally, this have to be above all interference by the Govt.”

Once more, Dr Ambedkar had stated on this: “There may be no distinction of opinion within the Home that our judiciary should each be impartial of the Govt and should even be competent in itself.” He rejected the demand for placing ‘concurrence’ of the chief justice in appointment of judges of the Supreme Courtroom, saying, “I personally really feel little question that the chief justice is a really eminent particular person. However in spite of everything, the chief justice is a person with all the emotions, all the feelings and all of the prejudices which we as widespread folks have.” And so he didn’t wish to give veto energy to the chief justice.

However then, by a convoluted interpretation, the Supreme Courtroom in its 1992 judgement [Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India or the Second Judges Case] learn “consent” in Article 124 to imply “concurrence” of the chief justice – and thus started the journey of the so-called collegium system.

To my thoughts, and as time has proved many times, this newly found energy by the Supreme Courtroom for itself has, removed from securing the independence of the excessive courts and Supreme Courtroom of India, made them weak and fearful. The judiciary at present is below nice problem. The Supreme Courtroom itself has forgotten its bounden obligation to guard residents towards violence to their elementary rights by exercising large powers below Article 32, which, in response to Dr Ambedkar, was “the center and soul” of the structure.

The Supreme Courtroom is both declining to train its energy in any respect or failing repeatedly in exercising it as per the structure. The result’s the current type of authorities and the current type of the structure, each faraway from what was envisaged by the framers and supplied expressly within the legislation itself.

Will we all – the Govt, Legislative, Judiciary and residents – in any respect realise the best efforts put in by the framers in giving us the very best structure on this planet? We’re ungrateful to them for having introduced upon us this example. The Constituent Meeting sat from December 9, 1946 to November 25 1949, for over 165 days. It debated the structure on 141 days, contemplating 7,635 amendments.

In his final speech, Dr Ambedkar stated, “The Congress celebration is, due to this fact, entitled to all of the credit score for the sleek crusing of the draft structure within the Meeting.”

Does even the Congress celebration remind residents of this at present?

He stated, “The states below our structure are on no account dependent upon the centre for his or her legislative or government authority. The centre and the states are co-equal on this matter.”

He warned that “if the events place creed above nation, our independence will likely be put in jeopardy a second time and doubtless be misplaced eternally”.

He requested, “What would occur to her democratic structure?” after 26 January 1950?

He answered: “It’s fairly doable for this new child democracy to retain its kind however give place to dictatorship in truth. If there’s a landslide [electoral verdict], the hazard of the second risk changing into actuality is way higher.” He forewarned towards bhakti in politics saying, “Bhakti in faith could also be a highway to the salvation of the soul. However in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a positive highway to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”

The framers envisaged justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as elementary objectives for the nation. Dr Ambedkar envisioned a social democracy, which means “a lifestyle” which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity because the “rules of life” in forming the union of a trinity – within the sense that to divorce one from the opposite can be to defeat the aim of democracy.

Even after seven a long time, Indians are nonetheless craving for that equality and fraternity because the framers had been. They’re nonetheless combating for liberty in an actual sense and struggling for justice, which excludes them for many years in our overburdened and considerably incapable judicial system.

Immediately in India, we’ve got authorities for the folks instead of authorities of the folks and by the folks. Establishments have survived, however their spirit is misplaced.

[Dushyant Dave is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]