The Supreme Court of India has an extraordinary role and duty under the Indian Constitution. It is a constitutional court and protector of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. Article 32 of the Constitution obliges the court to intervene and grant relief in case citizen’s Fundamental Rights are violated.During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr B.R. Ambedkar emphasised its importance and said, “If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important – an article without which this Constitution would be a nullify – 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 am glad that the House has realised its importance.”Then, when a lawyer sought its intervention on July 22, why did the Supreme Court decline to intervene and protect the fundamental rights of thousands of young students who were severely beaten by the police and some miscreants permitted by the police?The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant who was heading the bench with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said, “Don’t waste our time and don’t waste your time, we are not interested in videos, we don’t have time to watch.”Have Ambedkar ‘s words lost their significance in 2026?So, Ambedkar ‘s words have lost their significance in 2026? Is the court distancing itself from its core duty? Or is the court simply not willing to act against the Modi govt?The court needs to be reminded of the importance of Fundamental Rights, as stressed by Ambedkar during debates of the Constituent Assembly, when he termed them ” greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual.”Ambedkar had said, “The object of the Fundamental Rights is two-fold. First, that every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority.”The court has a very inconsistent approach in this area. It calls itself the protector of fundamental Rights, and has deemed as its duty to grant relief in case of violation of such rights if prima facie a case is shown, however laudable the object of authority may be, as was held in the Romesh Thapar case in 1950 and Daryao case in 1961.Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is another hallmark of the court and it has even held that when it is apprised of violations of those rights of a group of people, it must set aside all procedural shackles and hear such petitions to remedy miseries of people as held in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi case in 1989.Interestingly, the Supreme Court always intervenes to protect its own judges from police atrocities, as it did when a magistrate in Nadiad was ill treated. It issued contempt notice and ordered various relief and directions including suspension of a police inspector in 1991.Again, in 1994-95 it issued urgent directions for deploying paramilitary force in premises of the Allahabad high court when the police force went be berserk and attacked judges and lawyers on Sept 13 1994. Later, the court also followed it up by ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry.CJI Kant may wish away criticism against the court and himself, but there is strong basis for the criticism. And it is intended to better the justice delivery, not thwart it. So, it is inexplicable that the bench presided by him can move with lightening fast speed to ban NCERT textbooks for a chapter on “corruption in the judiciary”, directing stoppage of publication and distribution and also suspension of officers, but decides not to find time to protect young Indians who are simply clamouring for better administration of higher education and action against culprits of the NEET question paper leak.They want, and rightly so, accountability at the highest levels of the government, because such frauds have taken place at regular intervals, destroying lives of thousands of young students and also resulting in the loss of many young lives.Has the nation ever paused to think as to why every child of a person in power, be it politician, bureaucrat, police officer, judge amongst others, gets the best education, best jobs – many in foreign countries – but children of common citizens have to struggle so hard to come up?India is looking up to the judiciary to protect its democracyOur education system is archaic and needs a complete overhaul to suit current needs of the nation in modern times, as only then, the youth can be gainfully employed. Today, tens of millions of youngsters are waiting for jobs.The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) was created owing to the words of the CJI himself, who made extremely insensitive statements about India’s Gen Z who sadly happen to be unemployed thanks to those in power. He must be reminded of what the Supreme Court had ordained in 1950, “This Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of such rights.”India is looking up to the judiciary to protect its democracy, democratic values, Constitution, constitutional morality and the rule of law. Let us hope it acts to do so!Dushyant Dave is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.