As India celebrates BR Ambedkar’s 135th birth anniversary, it’s a good time to reflect on how well his greatest contribution—the Constitution—is serving the nation. There is frequent criticism that it has fallen short of the promises made in its Preamble, which envisions a socialist, secular republic committed to justice, equality, and liberty.
Failures can be pointed out in each of these areas.
Recent political developments have brought the underlying causes of these shortcomings to light.
Let's take a closer look at these issues within each branch of government and the federal structure established by our Constitution.
The Executive: Power Without Accountability
The Supreme Court recently criticised thYogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government for ordering the demolition of homes in Prayagraj without following the proper legal process. A video showing an eight-year-old girl running from bulldozers while grabbing her books disturbed the nation deeply.
The court expressed its outrage, stating, "It shocks the conscience of the court the manner in which, within 24 hours of the notice, it was done." In November, the Court banned bulldozer demolitions, describing their hasty use as a “lawless, ruthless state of affairs.” However, such incidents continue across the country.
Ambedkar’s Constitution does not provide a mechanism to restrain, penalise, or impeach a lawless executive (whether a Chief Minister or Prime Minister), as long as they maintain a majority in the Assembly (Vidhan Sabha or Parliament).
When drafting the Constitution, Ambedkar famously stated that the parliamentary system they were adopting would ensure a “responsible” government.
He argued that members of the Assembly would monitor the executive “daily” and hold it accountable, threatening its downfall if it misused its power. However, no Indian government has ever been ousted for abusing or overstepping its authority. This is simply because no MLA or MP wants to risk angering their party or triggering the dissolution of the house.
In 1985, India further weakened the Ambedkar Constitution’s check on the executive, by passing the anti-defection amendment, which made it illegal for MPs and MLAs to vote against their party.
The Legislature: Majority Rule, Minority Silence
The Parliament recently passed a controversial religious law, the Waqf Amendment Bill, which aims to reform the management of Muslim charitable endowments. The bill requires the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards; limits the formation of Waqfs to individuals who can prove they have followed Islam for at least five years, and involves government officials in validating Waqf properties.
It faced strong opposition, primarily because similar requirements do not exist for Hindu religious bodies. None of the amendments proposed by opposition parties were accepted. The bill passed in the Lok Sabha with a vote of 288-232 and in the Rajya Sabha with 128-95. No member of the ruling coalition voted against it.
Ambedkar's Constitution was designed based on the principle of majority rule, but it lacks any provisions that ensure minorities have a voice in governance. This flaw eventually led Ambedkar to turn against his own creation.
In 1953, he expressed his disillusionment in the Rajya Sabha, stating, "Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out… It does not suit anybody."
Prior to his involvement in drafting the Constitution, Ambedkar had argued that "Majority rule is untenable in theory and unjustifiable in practice." But during the framing process, Nehru and others convinced Ambedkar to abandon his proposals to give minorities a greater role in the country's governing institutions.
In a diverse and religiously charged country like India, the system of brute majority rule has proven ineffective.
This is evident from the ongoing conflicts across states, from Kashmir to Manipur to Kerala. If the majority can disregard the concerns of Muslims (around 14 percent of the population), what’s to stop it from doing the same with Christians (2.3 percent), Sikhs (less than 2 percent), or Dalits (17 percent)?
The Judiciary: Shielded from Scrutiny
Recently, a Delhi High Court judge was accused of corruption after a large sum of cash was found at his residence. In response, the Supreme Court swiftly formed a committee to investigate the matter, but declined a police investigation.
The court's internal collegium, a body of senior judges, recommended that the judge be transferred. He has since taken oath at a High Court in Uttar Pradesh. This incident has raised serious concerns about the transparency of judicial appointments, transfers, and investigations.
The system for appointing judges established by Ambedkar's Constitution gave the Prime Minister significant power. But within just 20 years, the system faltered when Indira Gandhi began appointing pliant judges to the Supreme Court in the early 1970s.
In the infamous "supersession of judges" episode, she replaced the Chief Justice with her own handpicked choice. By 1993, the Judiciary had grown disillusioned and persuaded Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to agree to the formation of the Collegium. Today, however, judges themselves are responsible for appointing, transferring, and investigating fellow judges, all without any oversight or transparency.
Federalism: A Disunited Union
Today, India's unity faces a new challenge.
Several smaller states, particularly in the South, have united to oppose the government's planned delimitation—a constitutionally mandated process to redraw parliamentary constituencies based on population. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, and other small states fear that the upcoming census will cause them to lose parliamentary seats to larger northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. They argue that their success in controlling population growth should not result in a loss of representation.
Ambedkar’s Constitution offers no clear solution to address the legitimate concerns of these smaller states. As Shashi Tharoor, Congress leader and MP from Kerala, recently pointed out, "What happens if the north Indian Hindi-speaking states suddenly have a two-thirds majority and can pass amendments?"
Our Constitution lacks an institution like the US Senate, where states have equal representation regardless of size. This flaw has led to delimitation being postponed for 50 years.
For a great nation like India, it is unwise to ignore such fundamental weaknesses in our Constitution. Ambedkar showed both wisdom and courage in recognising and spelling out these flaws. He would want us to do the same.
(Bhanu Dhamija is Founder and CEO of the Divya Himachal Group and author of ‘Why India Needs the Presidential System’. He can be reached @BhanuDhamija. This is a personal blog, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)