In a significant constitutional articulation, former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai has reaffirmed that the Indian Constitution does not merely promise equality in form, but mandates the dismantling of entrenched structures that perpetuate inequality. Delivered at the Ambedkar Memorial Lecture at NALSAR University of Law, his address foregrounds a deeper, transformative understanding of constitutionalism one that aligns law with social realities rather than abstract guarantees.
Justice Gavai’s central thesis rests on the distinction between formal equality and substantive equality. While the former ensures equal treatment in law, the latter demands corrective mechanisms to address historical and systemic disadvantages. He emphasised that the Constitution “does not envision equality as a mere formal assurance,” but rather calls for active dismantling of structural barriers embedded in society.
This position is doctrinally consistent with evolving constitutional jurisprudence under Article 14 and Article 21, where courts have increasingly recognised that neutrality in law may, in effect, perpetuate inequality when starting conditions are unequal. The lecture thus reaffirms a long-standing but often diluted constitutional commitment that equality requires intervention, not indifference.
Moving beyond abstract theorisation, Justice Gavai grounded his argument in lived realities. He identified structural discrimination as manifesting through layered disadvantages in access to healthcare, education, employment, and institutional mechanisms. These are not episodic inequities but systemic outcomes that persist across generations.
Illustratively, he referred to deeply troubling instances such as women labourers in agrarian economies undergoing hysterectomies due to exploitative labour structures highlighting how the human body itself becomes a site where
Such observations expand the constitutional discourse from courtroom adjudication to socio-economic critique, reinforcing that inequality is not incidental but structurally produced. A particularly compelling dimension of the lecture is its critique of development paradigms. Justice Gavai cautioned that development often extracts an “invisible cost” disproportionately borne by marginalised communities like Adivasis, farmers, and women.
This critique resonates with emerging constitutional environmentalism, where the judiciary has read principles of sustainable development into the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Development, therefore, cannot be constitutionally justified if it reproduces inequality or shifts burdens onto vulnerable populations.
Justice Gavai’s articulation subtly challenges the traditional growth-centric model, urging a recalibration where distributional justice becomes central to policy design.
The lecture draws deeply from the philosophy of B. R. Ambedkar, particularly his warning against the contradiction between political equality and socio-economic inequality. Justice Gavai reiterated that constitutional morality demands confronting entrenched hierarchies rather than merely acknowledging them.
This invocation is not rhetorical it situates the Constitution as a transformative document aimed at restructuring society. Affirmative action, redistributive policies, and judicial expansion of rights are not exceptions but integral to this constitutional design. A critical extension of Justice Gavai’s argument lies in its implications for governance. He calls for policy frameworks that recognise unequal starting points and actively reduce vulnerability. This includes rethinking climate policy, disaster response, and institutional accessibility areas where “formally neutral” frameworks often fail the marginalised.
Importantly, he also extends responsibility beyond the State to include corporations and institutions, signalling an evolving understanding of constitutional accountability in a globalised economy.
Justice Gavai’s lecture is not merely a normative appeal but a doctrinal restatement of the Constitution’s transformative ethos. It underscores three critical propositions:
- Equality is inherently substantive– requiring structural correction, not procedural neutrality.
- Development must be constitutionally conditioned-its legitimacy depends on equitable distribution of benefits and burdens.
- Institutions must internalise constitutional morality-actively dismantling hierarchies rather than passively administering law.
In essence, the lecture revives the radical promise of the Indian Constitution: that law is not a passive arbiter of existing inequalities but an instrument to dismantle them. At a time when governance models increasingly prioritise efficiency over equity, Justice Gavai’s articulation serves as a reminder that constitutional fidelity lies not in preserving structures, but in transforming them.
