On January 27, 2026, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave delivered the 27th Dr Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture in Mumbai on the ‘Constitution of India as conceived by its framers and its contemporary interpretation‘. Chaired by Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, the lecture examined the erosion of constitutional morality, the weakening of parliamentary democracy and the growing centralisation of power in India’s political system. Drawing extensively from the Constituent Assembly debates and the writings of the first law minister, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Dave traced how executive dominance, legislative majoritarianism, and judicial retreat have together altered the constitutional balance envisioned at the time of independence. Below is the full text of the speech, edited slightly for clarity. Good evening everyone,Mr Aspi Chinoy; indomitable and highly respected former colleague Mr Irfan Engineer; distinguished members of the Asghar Ali Engineer family; ladies and gentlemen.I feel deeply privileged to be invited to this 27th memorial lecture in memory of Late Asghar Ali Engineer. He was not just an academic, a reformist, a writer and a social activist, but was one of the most liberal thinkers on theology in Islam. He was well recognised and well read on communalism and its ugly face in India and South East Asia. He advocated peace and non-violence with communal harmony along Gandhian principles. As head of the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism founded by him, he made immense contributions. He was truly a great nationalist and a great Indian who left a lasting impression on the minds of millions.The topic for this evening is most relevant for our country today: “The constitution as envisioned by its framers and its contemporary interpretation.” I would like to make a slight change to it, with your permission, Mr Chinoy: “The constitution as envisioned by its framers and its complete perversion in contemporary times.”I am not saying this. Dr [B.R.] Ambedkar said these prophetic words as early as November 4, 1948:While everybody recognises the necessity of the diffusion of constitutional morality for the peaceful working of a democratic constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately, generally recognised. One is that the form of administration has a close connection with the form of the constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution.How true his words were is evident from how the current form of the government is. I will dilate on that a little later.But why was Dr Ambedkar so skeptical about today’s India 78 years ago? Because he felt that there was a complete absence of constitutional morality, not [just] amongst the majority of any community but throughout the whole society. By constitutional morality, he meant:A paramount reverence for the forms of the constitution, enforcing obedience to authority acting under and within these forms – yet combined with the habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal control, and unrestrained censure of those very authorities as to all their public acts. Combined, too, with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen, amidst the bitterness of party contest, that the forms of the constitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than in his own.He was of the opinion that constitutionalism is not a natural sentiment, but it must be cultivated, as he felt that our people had yet to learn it. He bitterly said:Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.What do we see around us today, as we did between 1975 and 1977, during the declared Emergency imposed by Mrs Indira Gandhi? We are witnessing an undeclared emergency today, according to me. But I request each of you to ponder, introspect on it, as every citizen must.Also read: Today’s India Has All the Markers of a Failing Democracy. But the Situation Is Not Irreversible.The framers [of the Constitution of India] chose parliamentary democracy over a presidential form of government because they preferred “more responsibility to more stability”. In a parliamentary democracy, the assessment of the responsibility of the Executive is both daily and periodic. The daily assessment is done by members of parliament, through questions, resolutions, No-Confidence Motions, Adjournment Motions and debates on addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the electorate at the time of elections, which may take place every five years or earlier.Ambedkar thought that a parliamentary executive more dependent upon a majority in parliament also becomes more responsible.How wrong history has proved him! Little did he realise that man would become so vile as he had only feared. Today, neither a daily independent assessment is possible nor periodic. The majority in parliament thinks it [the minority] must be subservient to the government, irrespective of how unconstitutionally or illegally the government behaves. It stands up and shouts in one voice, supports in unison and remains silent to all wrongs.The opposition is equally to be blamed in failing to conduct itself in a meaningful and responsible manner. They are just not able to corner the government for its omissions and commissions in their daily assessment. Walkouts and shouting hardly help to keep democracy vibrant and secure.Resultantly, the government can pass any law it wishes, mostly without serious debates in parliament, for example, the farm laws.On a more serious note, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, the new criminal laws introduced in 2023, the Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2019 (UAPA), the National Capital Territories (Amendment) Act, 2023, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Digital Data Protection Act, 2023, the electoral bonds scheme through the Finance Act, are some examples of majoritarianism suppressing fundamental and other legal rights of citizens.But more serious is the fallout of these laws. The Executive, through legislative agencies and police in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states, is seriously endangering the liberty and freedom of citizens in myriad ways.From fake encounters to bulldozer demolitions; from wrongful arrests under draconian laws like UAPA to arresting critics and stand-up comedians for criticising the government or its leaders. These actions have turned constitutional dreams into nightmares.A file photo of bulldozers mobilised for a demolition drive by the Ujjain Development Authority, in May 2025, in Madhya Pradesh. Photo: PTIThe attacks on opposition leaders by misusing agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) are meant to convert India into “opposition-mukt Bharat” – or a one-party rule. No wonder, one ED director got three extensions, in violation of the rules of business and a Supreme Court judgement.As against this, members of the ruling party are never investigated, much less arrested – perhaps because they all stand purified by Ganga-snaan [dip in the holy Ganga]. And within the party, any questionable politicians with pending cases were also purified after wearing saffron scarves.Is this what the framers [of the constitution] had envisaged? Certainly not.If the form of government is under attack, what about the form of the constitution?Also read: Full Text: Autocrats Have Learnt To Push Their Agenda While Retaining Paraphernalia of DemocracyThe framers chose the federal constitution over the unitary constitution with the fond hope of the existence of a central polity and subsidiary politics side by side, each sovereign in the field assigned to it. India [was] to have a federation with uniformity in all basic matters to ensure unity. So were conceived the Union and the states.Yes, under the constitution, the centre has greater powers in special and Emergency times, but in normal times, states enjoy full freedom as per the subjects assigned to them. Ambedkar described this in these words:One can therefore safely say that the Indian federation will not suffer from the faults of rigidity or legalism. Its distinguishing feature is that it is a flexible federation.However, what is being witnessed in the last decade is an onslaught on opposition-ruled states through subtle and direct moves. If the Congress government abused Article 356 to dismiss opposition-ruled state governments for over five decades, the BJP government today has discovered ingenious ways to control and stifle states ruled by opposition [parties].The governors – from not approving laws passed by elected legislatures, in total negation of democracy for an indefinite period, to interfering in law and order and educational institutions – have become laws into themselves. They are partisan in discharging their constitutional role and misuse their discretion.The framers [of the constitution] had expected them to be “sagacious counsellors”. Ambedkar was categorical on the position: a governor had no functions which he was required to discharge either in his discretion or in his individual “judgement” and he must act on ministerial advice. To keep him free from party politics, the framers chose a model of appointment rather than the election model. Again, to quote Ambedkar:If the constitution remains in principle the same as we intend that it should be, that the governor should be a purely constitutional governor, with no power of interference in the administration of the province, then it seems to me quite immaterial where he is nominated or elected.Yet, with impunity, governors in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, amongst other states, have openly and unabashedly conducted themselves improperly, as if they have independent powers. Thus, the central government has succeeded in subduing states if not preventing their [policy and legislative] endeavours.Second, in financial matters, states have been stifled, especially after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) which Shri [Narendra] Modi, as chief minister of Gujarat, had opposed for over a decade. States have little advantage of raising revenues with the abolition of Sales Tax and Entry Tax laws.There are credible reports of several states not getting sufficient funds from the central pool, as also of delayed disbursements of such funds. These actions directly impinge on federalism, thus making a mockery of the form of the constitution.So, with the form of government as also the form of the constitution being seriously under attack, if not eroded, can the state of parliamentary democracy [remain] as was envisaged by the framers? In my view, no, the constitution today is certainly not in action as was envisioned, though it remains so in textbooks.But are political parties alone responsible for their downfall?Not at all. We as citizens have failed the framers. [We have] forgotten the sacrifices made by millions of Indians who laid down their lives in the struggle for achieving freedom in 1947, who gave up their liberty, their wealth and their peace. How selfish we must be that in just seven decades we have lost sight of their greatest struggle won by satyagraha and sacrifices, not by war.More troublesome is the role of the judiciary. The framers gave us an independent judiciary, keeping it away, as much as possible, from contact with the Executive. [Member of Constituent Assembly and independence activist] K.M. Munshi put it clearly when he said:It is essential that in a democracy the judiciary must be there to adjust the differences between citizen and citizen, between state and state and even between the Government of India and states. If that independence is not secured, I am sure we would soon drift towards totalitarianism… independence of the judiciary demarcates the line between the democratic method and the totalitarian method.Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar called the Supreme Court “the foundation stone of our liberty”. Dr Ambedkar, intervening, said:There is no doubt that the House [Constituent Assembly] in general, has agreed that the independence of the Judiciary from the Executive should be made as clear and definite as we could make it by law.Rejecting apprehension that this would result in creating “imperium in imperio”, Ambedkar said, “We want to give the Judiciary ample independence so that it can act without fear or favour of the Executive.”Pocker Sahib [Badekkandy Pocker], a respected member [of the Constituent Assembly], had feared:It is of the highest importance that the judges of the Supreme Court should not be made to feel that their existence or their appointment is dependent upon political considerations or on the will of the political party. Therefore, it is essential that there should be sufficient safeguards against political influence being brought to bear on such appointments. Of course, if a judge owes his appointment to a political party, certainly in the course of his career as a judge, also as an ordinary human being, he will certainly be bound to have some consideration for the political views of the authority that has appointed him.How did he know that some, if not many, Supreme Court judges, during Emergency and in recent times, would be like he had imagined?Mr K.T. Shah [Member of the Constituent Assembly] went further:In my opinion, Sir, if I may say so with all respect, this constitution concentrates so much power and influence in the hands of the prime minister in regard to the appointment of judges, ambassadors, or governors to such an extent, that there is every danger to apprehend that the prime minister may become a dictator if he chooses to do so.Shri [N. Gopalaswamy] Ayyangar had called the judiciary a “watchdog of democracy” and said, “This is the institution which will preserve those rights and secure to every citizen the rights that have been given to him under the constitution. Therefore, naturally, this must be above all interference by the Executive.”Also read: India Is an Elected Dictatorship Where Constitutionalism Is Under Attack From WithinAgain, Dr Ambedkar had said on this: “There can be no difference of opinion in the House that our judiciary must both be independent of the Executive and must also be competent in itself.” He rejected the demand for putting ‘concurrence’ of the chief justice in appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, saying, “I personally feel no doubt that the chief justice is a very eminent person. But after all, the chief justice is a man with all the feelings, all the sentiments and all the prejudices which we as common people have.” And so he did not want to give veto power to the chief justice.But then, by a convoluted interpretation, the Supreme Court in its 1992 judgement [Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India or the Second Judges Case] read “consent” in Article 124 to mean “concurrence” of the chief justice – and thus began the journey of the so-called collegium system.To my mind, and as time has proved again and again, this newly discovered power by the Supreme Court for itself has, far from securing the independence of the high courts and Supreme Court of India, made them weak and fearful. The judiciary today is under great challenge. The Supreme Court itself has forgotten its bounden duty to protect citizens against violence to their fundamental rights by exercising wide powers under Article 32, which, according to Dr Ambedkar, was “the heart and soul” of the constitution.The Supreme Court is either declining to exercise its power at all or failing repeatedly in exercising it as per the constitution. The result is the present form of government and the present form of the constitution, both far flung from what was envisaged by the framers and provided expressly in the law itself.Representative image. A protester against the amended citizenship law introduced in 2019. Photo: Hghulam49, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.Do we all – the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and citizens – at all realise the greatest efforts put in by the framers in giving us the best constitution in the world? We are ungrateful to them for having brought upon us this situation. The Constituent Assembly sat from December 9, 1946 to November 25 1949, for over 165 days. It debated the constitution on 141 days, considering 7,635 amendments.In his last speech, Dr Ambedkar said, “The Congress party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the draft constitution in the Assembly.”Does even the Congress party remind citizens of this today?He said, “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.”He warned that “if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost forever”.He asked, “What would happen to her democratic constitution?” after 26 January 1950?He answered: “It is quite possible for this newborn democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide [electoral verdict], the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.” He forewarned against bhakti in politics saying, “Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”The framers envisaged justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as fundamental goals for the nation. Dr Ambedkar envisioned a social democracy, meaning “a way of life” which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the “principles of life” in forming the union of a trinity – in the sense that to divorce one from the other would be to defeat the purpose of democracy.Even after seven decades, Indians are still yearning for that equality and fraternity as the framers were. They are still fighting for liberty in a real sense and struggling for justice, which excludes them for decades in our overburdened and somewhat incapable judicial system.Today in India, we have government for the people in place of government of the people and by the people. Institutions have survived, but their spirit is lost.Dushyant Dave is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India.