Is India Still The Democracy We Believe It Is Tharoor Chandrachud

TITLE: Is India Still the Democracy We Believe It Is | Dr. Shashi Tharoor & CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud CHANNEL: IIMUN DATE: 2026-01-24 ---TRANSCRIPT--- 650 students from 30 plus law schools across Maharashtra and I would like to tell you we could not fit all of them here. So we have another auditorium in the same premises where we are uh broadcasting this live with 300 more students.

Hello. [cheering] [applause] And the best part we did not have to open registrations for this. It was by invite only and we filled up in day one. So and this is the magic of two people and for the very first time on stage together Dr. Shashit Harur and his justice Dr. Dai [cheering] [applause] [screaming] with your permission if I may start I want to start this with how you start our living constitution you cite Dr. Ambedkar’s warning. However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. You’ve also referred to the 1975 emergency as a dark period in your book. Would you class classify this as an example of what Dr. Ambedkar was warning us against? I think his warning is timeless. It can’t be restricted to any one particular event. But I will say that the peculiar thing about the 75 to 77 emergency was that it actually was within the letter of the constitution but against its spirit. It was constitutional but undemocratic. And since democracy was so deeply embedded in the spirit of the constitution, it violated that spirit. So in a sense what Amitka was warning us is you might be able to uphold the letter of the law and completely betray what the law was intended to achieve. In all fairness Mrs. Gandhi then held an election under the constitution and with all the freedoms that the constitution required and then we proceeded to lose it. So in all fairness again she stuck in the end or she returned in the end to the spirit of the constitution but the emergency itself I would agree was not despite not being unconstitutional was not democratizing absolutely and today some some may feel that the current establishment is misusing powers in subtler but equally dangerous would you say it’s true or a bit of an exaggeration no look I mean there’s a there’s an argument that many political parties in the opposition have made that we’re living through an undeclared emergency. Uh and then the the uh the BJP side would promptly turn around and say, “Well, you’re able to say this during the emergency. You couldn’t have been thrown in jail if you said that.” So, you know, it then becomes haggling over what is the definition of an undeclared emergency and so on. So, I prefer not to use terms loosely. Um, I’ve always been very reluctant to to stick a label on something unless the label in itself conveys exactly what I wanted to convey. And very often, I’m afraid uh words are fraught with meanings, with associations, with historical baggage. So I prefer not to address it in that I’ve talked about the fact that in many ways a lot of the decisions that we have seen taken by the current government have involved in some ways a hollowing out of our institutions and our processes and our constitutional principles. They’re all standing the constitution has not directly been violated or justice pointed enough but at the same time it hasn’t in every case I think been adeared to in in principle and so how do we ensure as Dr. wanted us to that the operation of the constitution is done in as good a way as as he would have liked when he introduced this whole concept of constitution morality into our discourse it hadn’t been raised in the Indian political or judicial space until he brought it in it was a I think fair to say a fairly relatively obscure idea that uh that growth had come up with uh in Europe but Ambedka brought it in and he applied it very specifically because he had, as you know, a lot of concerns about what he called the top dressing of a liberal constitution on essentially undemocratic soil because as a Dalith, he felt that our society was not democratic. But we were giving a democratic constitution to to to a society which because it was inherently undemocratic might apply the constitution without the moral content that he wanted it to have. So for him it was very important that we acquire constitutional morality and that meant that the spirit of the constitution had to be practiced throughout society. I I as you know he he said some perhaps slightly intemperate things before his death against the workings of the constitution uh that he had himself been the the progenitor of. But for him you could have a bad constitution that could be made great by good people and you could have a good constitution made bad by bad people. And so we must constantly be on on guard. It’s a vigilance that we have to all show all the time and be cautious with our words and it’s coming from the wonderland of words himself. So um now coming to um justice you when you know sweeping mandates are secured um many fear that there is a risk of constitutional distortion and they say this because increasingly there are number of judges assuming uh public offices postretirement. Um how do you respond to growing concerns about the judiciary’s independence and public perception of its neutrality? uh Anjeni you know there’s a premise underlying your question which is that the constitution would thrive and be strong when you have a fractured majority uh in the governance at the center and I question that uh assumption. The constitution was not intended to be a document or an instrument which would thrive when you have a polit politically fractured majority uh in governance. It’s a constitution for all times, for all seasons. You may have a strong uh party which is ruling the government either in the center or the states. You may have a coalition. You may have a variety of political configurations. But nonetheless, the constitution was intended to govern equally well independent of what political uh confabulations or configurations you have in different uh states or in the center. uh coming to your the question now which you pose in the basis of the premise which is of a number of judges accepting postretirement offices and there’s that impact on judicial independence. uh you know there’s a host of parliamentary legislation which contemplates that you will have retired judges to man those specialized tribunals because increasing across increasingly across the democratic world uh specialized tribunals have been constituted. So just to give you a few examples, you have the uh appellet tribunal for electricity here in Mumbai. The securities appellet tribunal. You have the central administrative tribunal, the armed forces tribunal, the national green tribunal, the national consumer disputes redressel tribunal, the national company law, appellet tribunal and the tribunal you know which is hearing all the cases under the insolveny and bankruptcy code. Now in all these tribunals the underlying legislation or the ITAT the income tax apparel tribunal which is not a new creation it’s a creation of several decad several decades ago all these pieces of parliamentary legislation contemplate that a former judge a former chief justice of the high court or a judge of the supreme court would head the tribunal so if you didn’t have former judges accepting these judicial offices which incidentally parliament has created you would not be able to man these specialized tribunals in the first place. Now you know the reality anjeni is very different from what your question portrays it and you I can share with you this experience which I had as a chief justice which is that it is increasingly difficult to have judges accept office to these tribunals. Possibly it’s because of you know the this uh the environment which the media has created that any judge who accepts office in an administrative tribunal or in the armed forces tribunal has been given some sort of political favor. As a chief justice you had to actually you know pursue judges because we need people of integrity. We need people of competence to man these highly specialized tribunals in new areas of economic and regulatory governance like the appellet tribunal for electricity. Every dispute is dealing with thousands of crores and the most complex issues of of deregulation of the electricity sector or securities appellet tribunal which sits just around the corner at Nariman point which on which depends the stability of our stock market. So you require people men and women of integrity to head these tribunals and therefore parliament has contemplated that there would be judges who would be occupying these officers. Uh and that’s part of the policy of an elected body which represents the whole nation in in the legislature. uh you know coming away from these specialized tribunals the question as to whether former judges should hold political office contest elections for instance uh we’ve had examples in the past one of our most distinguished judges justice subarov uh resign from the Supreme Court to contest the presidential election which he lost which he love which he lost now Indian democracy or the judicial independence of our judges has not been damaged by these examples so it’s ultimately a question of everyone’s conscience and you know what keeps judicial independence afloat is something much more fundamental and that’s a combination it’s a combination of [snorts] the constitutional environment active citizens participation in the adjudicatory process uh the critique of an independent media uh civil society which is constantly keeping a watch on how judges behave and perform. So it’s not that simple but you know the difficulty lies when we create this hype around anybody who accepts postretirement office that somehow this must be wrong which means that we are actually ensuring that a lot fewer judges are willing to accept that office part of the reason is that you know after spending 20 years on the bench you don’t want to get back into judicial office you want to be a free citizen as I am today but um so it’s not as uh simple as that you know having a direct correlation Would you agree that there is a distinction between accepting an office that is meant for and even reserved for former judges like all the examples you cited and accepting say a Raja Sabha seat or a governorship which are not only for judges and some of the judges who’ve done that they have been particularly no you know we’ve had some we’ve had some exceptional individuals who have occupied those offices as well uh people who have done remarkably well uh in those offices in fact I believe to the contrary that there’s a great deal of experience which judges can bring to say the legislative bodies. I think I appeared before the joint parliamentary committee just two weeks ago on the one nation one election uh constitutional amendment which is proposed. I was requested by the chairperson to make my presentation. I said well this is the first time in my life I’m going to be doing that. But I I felt that I learned such a great deal from interacting with the uh parliamentarians and realized that you know across party lines the work which is done in parliamentary committees is such such a high constitutional order where people have forgotten to that moment uh you know the party divisions they’re talking about pure constitutional doctrine likewise I believe that there is an inadequate sense of understanding about the true nature of the judicial functions, the challenges which face our judiciary and therefore these watertight divisions between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary which must hold so long as you are in office are not as watertight or shouldn’t be as watertight. They’re not as watertight in other parts of the world. Uh we know that they’re not as watertight in the United States. I’m not sure whether that’s a better system or not. It’s ultimately a matter of individual conscience as well. uh but I for one feel that we shouldn’t be laying down absolute boundaries because the absolute boundaries which we tend to lay down are not valid in constitutional theory and they don’t make good for for good constitutional practice as well I mean coming back to the constitution it’s such a visionary document why did the founding parents the fathers and mothers there 15 members of the constitution assembly who are women as you referred to in the book why is it that they didn’t pose a disqualification on former judges entering into legislative office. Uh and that was for a reason. They imposed other qualific disqualification but not this one. So I don’t believe in drawing absolute or rigid boundaries. I think life is much more fluid and we should allow it to remain that way. And with people like yourself who who are at the helm safeguarding this pillar of democracy, I think we are good. But uh moving on to my next question which uh I think um our Gen Z and millennial audience are very passionate about freedom of speech and expression. Um uh your lordship article 191A guarantees free speech with reasonable restrictions. Yet time and again we’ve seen comedians are jailed before performing. Creators face firs for satire and this happens while elected leaders make inappropriate remarks be it communal or otherwise they are let go without consequence. How does the judiciary address what many feel is an uneven application of free speech? Do you think sometimes those in power seem to be protected and those dissenting are penalized? Well, I for one believe that you know free speech is at the core of constitutional liberty and the ability of people to speak to dissent to express a voice which is away from the mainstream as also within the mainstream is at the core of uh of the functioning of a democratic policy. The ultimate protector of free speech is not just the judiciary or the law. It’s also civil society. But the judiciary and the rule of law have a vital element are a vital element in the protection of uh free speech. What is of concern to me today is the unwillingness of our trial judiciary particularly to be liberal in the grant of bail in matters particularly concerning free speech. uh a person uh even a day’s incarceration as an undertrial if it’s wrong is a day too long. Even an hour is an hour too long because it has a chilling effect on what others perceive can happen to them if they uh speak something which is you know frowned upon uh by speaking truth to power. uh therefore particularly because the trial courts have the first interface with our citizens is the trial courts which have to be strengthened in their ability to grant bail. What is now happening is this that matters which should end in the trial court granting bail move to the high courts. Matters which should end with the high court granting bail move to the Supreme Court. As a result of which we there’s a real danger that the system is becoming dysfunctional because by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court several weeks or maybe several months have passed away and then what happens if the Supreme Court grants bail in a case where the trial court should have granted bail in the first case and therefore the presumption that you know uh bail should be the rule and jail should be the exception particularly in matters involving you know core political rights like free speech. must necessarily govern. Uh but you know, we live unfortunately today uh in an in a in a culture of distrust uh about public institutions and I dare say that judges particularly at the trial level are sometimes fearful of whether the grant of bail would be misunderstood as being motivated by some improper consideration. We have to protect our judges. Even if a judge was wrong in the grant of bail, uh that judge should be protected. There’s obviously a remedy, a higher remedy. You may set aside an order which is wrong. But then to you know castigate a judge or or or bring a sort of a moral uh disincentive to a judge who’s granting bail is unfortunate and that’s what has happened. But there’s a general culture of distrust of all public institutions and this is part of the reason for where we find that we are today. But this is certainly a matter of concern. Dr. Thur, I’d like to ask you the other side of it. Um, you’ve engaged with a lot of young people at IM as well. We engage with uh impressionable young minds which are usually below 19. This is an exception audience today which we’re very happy to organize as well. But um these young people consume vast amounts of content online. Do you think that the government um should protect them from harmful, polarizing and inappropriate content or do you think it should be left at individual discretion? Well, I think the problem with asking the government to control what people can consume by way of information is that the government may have an agenda different from what u you intend when you propose such a thing. So I’d prefer to keep the government’s hands off any kind of information flow. The question of then who should control or whether should be controlled at all I think is up to the individual and the individual’s family. I mean there are families where um you know children’s time on the net is rationed where they’re told they can only go on the internet for an hour a day or whatever it may be. There are others where where some are not allowed to have a mobile phone or access to one until they reach a certain age. So there are various ways in which this could be regulated short of getting the government involved. I I’m I’m actually um a bit nervous about getting governments involved. Governments have political agendas, any government. And governments obviously have points of view, which means that in the guise of restricting something that’s harmful, they can also restrict things they don’t like. And then whose morality comes into play? It’s a politicians, not that of any uh civil society standard or family standard or or even judicial standard. So I’d rather keep the government out of this business. It’s it’s not easy. I mean I know that many many people feel that complete lack of regulation can be dangerous but I think that if you give regulation to the wrong people that can be more dangerous and that that becomes an issue. I’d like to briefly turn to what Justice Chand said earlier about this question of of um people uh having to spend weeks often going through three levels of the judiciary in order to get bail which they should have got in the first instance. He’s totally right, of course, but very often the prosecution intends not to convict the person but just to harass the person through this kind of the process is the punishment. If somebody is charged with some trivial offense and the trial judge doesn’t have the courage to give him or her bail and then this keeps on dragging out in the meantime the person is sitting in jail for weeks months losing income losing livelihood losing their sanity losing their freedom and at the end of it they let off anyway which they should have been that becomes a real problem and in many ways I think the misuse of the judiciary that worries me very much is this entire question of the process there are so many inefficiencies in our societ system. There are trivial cases that judges should have thrown out of the very first hearing which I admitted and which drag on for ages. I mean I remember when I first came into politics and some people didn’t like that. I was actually sued for having put my hand on my heart during the singing of the national anthem as apparently a violation of the 1971 respective national honor act or some such thing. And this dragged on for four years cost me by then a small fortune in legal fees and so on. At the end of which when we finally went to the high court the high court said putting a hand on your heart as an act of respect where is a disrespect and threw it out. But we had gone through four years and innumerable hearings including hearings in which the complainant didn’t show up and still the case was just adjourned instead of being thrown out. And I kept asking myself why do we allow this to happen? Why are we doing this to ourselves wasting so much time? The first time in my life I stood in a dock as a guilty person charged person uh [laughter] for this this offense. I felt awful and I felt my god this is what they mean you know this is a way of exacting conformity. Anyway I mean I I I I do feel that the fact that the process is the punishment is something that ordinary people have to worry about with our judiciary. Absolutely. And keeping uh government away from regulating the content we consume. I think perhaps at this day and age would be a smart idea. But um moving on to our next topic um is on reservations where uh Dr. Tarur you note how reservations originally envisioned by uh Dr. Ambedkar and as you quote uh are a temporary corrective but today have become politically untouchable. Um I’m from GLC myself and you know 50% more than 50% of seats are reserved and you know we work with this Iman’s network with so many young people. We hear this quite often and there is a growing concern that merit is often being compromised in the names of reservation. Do you believe India can ever move beyond reservations or are they too entrenched in woodbank politics? I think they’re they’re very very entrenched. In fact the irony is a lot of the founding fathers were against reservations including Mr. Uru has written about it uh in letters to chief ministers saying why he’s opposed to reservations. Um there’s even a debatable proposition I don’t want to get into it about whether Dr. Ambedka wanted at the end of 10 years uh the reservations to continue or not. Um but the fact of the matter is they’re here to stay. You know in America I don’t know how many of you have knowledge of this but the American subway system the the underground subway system in America has three rails and the two rails on which the train runs and in between there is a third rail which generates the electricity on which the train train runs. Now if you accidentally touch the third rail you’re instantly electrocuted. Reservations are the third rail of Indian politics. No one’s no politician is going to dare to touch them because he’s instantly fried. So the the result is very very seriously that whatever intellectual disagreements and discussions you may have um you know when when even sort of the great grandson of of of uh of of Mr. Nu is a major advocate of reservations in our politics today. I think those who may have intellectual difficulties with this notion u will have to sit back and say this we can’t touch. we have to work within it and try and ensure the promotion of merit with it. I mean I have been advocating for a long time for example that the many of the sort of underprivileged communities underprivileged by either class or cast or gender or religion should actually be getting also another kind of affirmative action. Extra courses, remedial instruction, a leg up, extra coaching for example in how to take examinations. um how you can get for example people into the police into the uh army into into in fact even the the central services by encouraging them to be able uh to take advantage of the the the the opportunities available to them through merit. So even within reservations it’s possible to promote merit but you need to encourage it because a lot of people need that extra help. Um lordship justice what is your advice to the government on going about this? Has the time come to re-evaluate the structure and scope of reservations not to weaken affirmative action but to ensure it remains fair and relevant? I have a slightly different take on the previous question as well as this one on the regulation of the content of the internet. I’ll just take less than 20 seconds on that. I still believe that there are some lines which we have to draw on the regulation of the internet and the content of the internet. Obviously, political speech should not be regulated. Uh but what about child pornography? Well, that’s a law already, you know. So is there should there be no regulatory framework for regulating say child pornography or the depiction of gendered violence where you sort of bring down the dignity of a woman uh by the depiction of violence against but those are all against the law but what’s against the law no one is but what is against the law is still still freely available on the internet. So in which case should we not as a nation really uh arrive at some consensus that these are boundaries which no one can cross. Don’t depict child pornography. Don’t depict any scene which involves violence against a woman uh physical violence or emotional or mental violence because otherwise this will become the new normal in our society. Uh that’s my little point on this. On the second aspect on reservations which was really your which was your question. Reservations were introduced in India in the backdrop of centuries of discrimination against the marginalized groups in our society who did not by the way constitute a minority but constitute the majority of the country. That’s the difference say between India and the US. Now the idea therefore was through reservations and affirmative action to mainstream them into Indian public life in Indian social life. The constitution itself was not just an instrument for the transfer of political power from a colonial to an independent Indian regime but an instrument of social transformation. So there were two parallel movements which were going on when the constitution was drafted and resol and reservations in that sense proceed on the postulate that you can have a stable polity you can have a stable society when all in all elements of the society including those who have been historically discriminated against for centuries are brought into the mainstream of discourse. Now we have to ask ourselves this question. Can we say today 75 years after the constitution has been adopted that discrimination against say the marginalized communities the scheduled cast the scheduleled tribes in particular has ended after 75 years and the answer to that would be clearly in in the negative. You still have students who commit suicide valid students who have committed suicide in the IIT or or in different institutions. So which means that the time where you can say that discrimination against a scheduled cast has ended has still not arrived in India. India still faces that. Having said that you know judicially there have been a number of very innovative approaches to to reservation. One of the decisions which we rendered as part of the constitution bench was on this issue of subclassification. Can a state government subclassify the scheduled casts which are notified by parliament or the president as the case may be so as to confine or give benefits to the most backward amongst them? The Supreme Court said yes. There’s nothing in the constitution which would prevent a state government from identifying those cars which are truly backward and then ensuring that benefits go to them so that the benefits are not really absorbed by the most forward amongst the backward communities. So we’ve permitted that. The other reservation in India is for the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The OBC’s as we call them that’s how the constitution calls them. Now we’ve applied the creamy layer doctrine to reservations for the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens which means that the most affluent amongst the the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens are excluded from the benefit of reservations. The final point which I want to make on this of course you know you can spend a whole afternoon discussing this is on what do you really mean by merit? Does merit mean for instance the scores which you clock on the NEAT national eligibilityly commenceance test for medical admissions or in in the in the CLA the common law aptitude test. You know the reason why merit cannot be reflected in the scores which you have on these the raw scores in these tests is that the raw scores which students attain in these tests are themselves the product of your cultural and social capital. You know the best students who the students who generally score the best are those who have access to coaching classes who have command over English. Uh there are of course exceptions to this but therefore if you define merit not in terms of your ability to score in examinations but merit in terms of inclusion of the ability of our society to give responsible positions in governance to different segments of society that that is what defines merit. Then reservations are not contrary to merit but they in fact further merit because it allows for people whether they become IAS officers whether they become IPS officers doctors an equal share of social development otherwise you know what is happening even today Anjeni is this that if you look at the representation of the scheduleled cars for instance you’ll find a lot of representation or improved representation at the lowest levels class four post when you come to the top posts the most important positions of responsibility you’d find them lacking even today the same thing in the case of women for instance now where do you find [applause and cheering] so therefore I think you know the of course Dr. Tambkar believed that you know reservations initially should be valid for 10 years but I do believe that for India to maintain the sense of social harmony the social equilibrium and I see the flip side as you said in the law college 50% of the seats are reserved and I see the flip side from the point of view of a person belonging to a non-reserved community but looking at it from an overall national perspective I still do believe that reservations in India have been a very potent source of maintaining this social equilibrium where we brought all segments of the community and given them an opportunity for personal growth and development and social growth and development as well. I agree with all that but can can I just ask you a question uh Danj on on on a very important aspect of this. In 2015 justices Goa and Narima neither of them was a a chief justice at the time came up with a judgment on the Jat reservation case where they actually declared that birth into a particular category would no longer be sufficient for the Supreme Court to permit reservations and they wanted the government to come back with a matrix of disabilities that would entitle a person to reservations. Now curious go went on to become a CGI never referred to his own judgment again I believe he was the principal author of it and subsequently of course Nariman had a distinguished career you’ve had reservation related cases coming before you I’ve never seen another reference to this argument that and the government has never come up with a matrix anyway that you could actually make reservations and merit and all of these things something that is subject to a greater set of considerations s than mere birth into a cast or a community alone. That you would have, let’s say, you know, you could have points for being a single mother, uh being uh earning a certain level of income, uh being of a certain cast or community, being whatever all of those things and then depending on that you would qualify or not for reservation. That’s what I understood by the language of that judgment. I’m just curious what ever happened to that thinking. You know the moment you you talk about these other metrics then you are substituting the very foundation of the reservation policy which is no it is not necessarily good. Now we have reservations under the EWS category, the economically weaker sections where you apply a pure economic criteria. But you can’t really subsume reservations only under the economically weaker sections category because in some communities birth within that community is itself a source of discrimination. Even in the India today if you go to the villages birth within that cast or community is a very potent source of discrimination. Now what the government has done which is by bringing in the recent constitutional amendment is to also allow for reserv reservations to the EWS category which is really to say that in the non-reserved categories namely the non SCEST OBC categories as well there may be people who would be economically underprivileged and who should also be given a certain degree of reservation which is a different basis altogether of reservation but to apply that criterion to casts which are fundamentally underprivileged would really take away the whole social basis of the reservation uh policy and I I still do believe that India has not still come to that point where we can say that well all communities are equally or all casts are equally situated and therefore we can end reservations. I don’t think India has come to that level at all as well. Like you said sir, we could go on uh for a few more hours on this topic. So um moving on to another question which um our constituent assembly wanted us to address which is uniform civil code. Um justice from Shahabano to Sarah Madgal the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the importance of a uniform civil code as essential for gender justice and national integration. Yet in 2025, UCCC remains unimplemented. Do you believe first? Do you think India needs a UCCC today? And if so, what continues to hold back its realization? Uh the constitution gives us an answer. The constitution speaks about the desiraability of a uniform civil code. Uh it’s part of the directive principles of state policy, therefore not capable of being enforced as a fundamental right by any citizen. But yet a powerful statement of a constitutional goal. 75 years have elapsed. Is 75 years not adequate enough for us to achieve a constitutional goal? I think we have to achieve the constitutional goal. U I’ll give you a very simple example. Why should for instance the religion or the community to which a woman belongs I’m giving you an example from the point of view of gender. All right? And this is not universal but just as an example. Why should the fact that a woman belongs to a woman for whom succession opens up because say a father has or father or mother has died or a spouse has died. Why should the nature of succession or the extent of succession rights be dependent on which religion she belongs to? uh for for a woman for instance who is left destitute or even not destitute just in terms of her her rights to succession why should it be dependent on what religion she professes we live under the rubric of one nation and at least in matters of succession it’s time that the country made the first step forward to ensure that irrespective of what religion you belong to these are essential matters where we are Indians. Now to speak of a uniform civil code is not to deny that every community or every religious community is entitled to their own forms of ritual for say marriage ceremonies. Not at all. If you belong to a community a and you know you have to take the sapadi fine. If you belong to another community and there are different forms of religious ritual for marriage that’s fine. These are all cultural these are cultural traditions which are obviously very vital to a plural India to an inclusive and diverse India. But in matters such as adoption adoption of children. Uh if a single woman wants to adopt a child why should her right to adopt a child be dependent on uh what community she belongs to? Uh as I gave you the example of succession. So obviously we have to make this step forward now in terms of having a UCCC. Having said that I think it’s important for our legislators to take the community into confidence and by community I mean you know the wider society uh you know for instance uh tribal issues. uh there has to be a greater degree of confidence that this is not going to affect tribal custom which it will not where there exists tribal custom because India is diverse. So we need to take we need to have a very rational conversation uh across the board. Take diverse elements of our community into confidence and say that this is ultimately not merely uh something which we need to do to foster the idea of one India but also as a matter of justice to different segments of our society. But there should be this element of confidence building. Confidence building which I think is crucial because that’s part of the political process in a in a in a democratic polity. Yeah, I I agree entirely with that. What what even Neruji said was that you know uniform civil code is desirable but you’ve got to take everybody along. You can’t impose it on anybody. The problem has been that of course when you don’t want to impose it on everybody, you are essentially giving a veto very often to the most retrogressive elements in each community who for example would want to deny women certain rights in those communities and therefore they resist a UCCC. So you’ve got to have a conscious effort at a persuasive exercise. The other thing is being absolutely sure of what exactly a UCCC is going to contain. One of the frustrations that we’ve had in the political debates on the UCCC is no one has shown us a draft law. Now we finally got Utakhan coming up with a UCCC but that contains some pretty preposterous uh requirements like living couples having to register and all sorts of things which certainly were never part of any civil code anywhere and suddenly have come into Uttarakhan where they were it was not a requirement in the past. What is that supposed to mean? Uh are we going to try and make that a national thing? I mean, I I um get the impression more and more that in the absence of clarity of an agreed uh draft code that would actually be a product of of a widespread consultation with all communities uh that this is going to go nowhere. It’s not because everything the justice says is correct. I think obviously uh the main issues, the contentious ones are going to be marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption. I mean the these are the areas in which personal laws are held very close by many communities and they don’t want to abregate the practices of those communities in these areas. Um but if a if a UCCC is going to venture well beyond that and come up with all these other provisions then many of us may not agree with some of those elements of the UCC who are otherwise in favor of a UCCC. You see what I’m saying? So we need to know what will the UCCC contain? Who loses out? who gains what will be abolished what what of current practices will no longer be possible what new practices will be required when that picture is clear we can have a better informed conversation until then if I ask you the question you don’t know whether UCC should be implemented today or not in principle it’s a desirable idea I don’t think anyone can disagree uh after all most countries in the world have uniform civil code and even today in India I mean if you commit a murder doesn’t matter what your religion is if you commit a driving offense it doesn’t matter what your religion is you have the same punishment as anybody else. Right. It’s only in these specific areas that your personal law applies and and either shields you or or or disables you. Absolutely. Um now I’d like to take you to another very interesting subject. You’ve written the chapter on this an alternative idea of India. Mhm. And u Dr. Dr. Tur, you document how early leaders of the RSS openly rejected the constitution and criticized it for being too rooted in western uh ideas rather than Hindu traditions. Um and they themselves advocated for a Hindu raashtra. You describe this as part of an alternative idea of India. And yet in your following chapters you do acknowledge an important shift that has taken place with Moan Bhagwat. um the current chief of RSS publicly stating that the organization now accepts the constitution. So this is not a small turn. Do you do you think this is uh a genuine ideological shift or do you think it’s a strategic accommodation of for electoral success? Yeah, that uh you know the genuiness of anybody’s conversion is a matter for for individual judgment. To my mind there seems to be a significant shift. Let me explain that the the conceptual disagreement. Yes, I mean they they did talk about it being full of imported western ideas and written in the wrong language because the original drafting was in English. Uh but that wasn’t the main thing. The main thing was a conceptual debate on what is a nation. So the constitution defined India as a territory, a physical body of land and assigned rights to everybody living on that territory who had a claim to citizenship. That was what the constitution did. Whereas what people like sawkar golwalker and other thinkers at that time all the way up to uh 20 years after the constitution was adopted they all said this is fundamentally flawed as a premise. A nation is not a territory. A nation is a people. And they said the people of India are the Hindu people. And therefore the constitution should have been written only for the Hindus of India. It should have enshrined a Hindu nation and it should have made provisions for others to be here as either guests or interlopers or or as invitees or whatever and that that was their notion. Now that was very explicitly rejected by the founders of the constitution who saw very much uh sort of conventional if you like idea of constitution as something that gave everyone rights irrespective of their religion. Now it took a long time for the uh Hindu raashtra school of thought to come around to the idea of the constitution. Well, we’ve seen in the first ever time that the advocates of hindut have had a majority in parliament and have come into government that they have embraced the constitution. The prime minister declared it to be his holy book. Uh as you said Mr. Mr. Moan Bhagat the Sarang Chalak of the RSS has publicly said that uh his notion of Hindu raashtra does not exclude Muslims for example uh and that uh how people choose to worship and what gods they worship are their business. Uh but what he wants is for them to subscribe to Indianness which in fact is a fairly significant departure from that conceptual view of Indian nationalism as inhering in the Hindu people. And I think that whole notion of the Hindu people itself was a bit confused at the time. The RSS was founded in 1925 at a time when around the world there were all sorts of ideas of race and there are references in both Sabakas and Goldwalker’s writing to the Hindu race. The Hindus are not a race but that was the way people thought in those days about racial purity and the rights of certain races and so on and they thought in those terms which now seem completely old-fashioned and discredited. So I do believe there has been a change. U in fact one of the striking things uh which I’m not sure I mentioned in the book I probably haven’t is that the RSS has now issued an expated edition of Goldwalker’s writings leaving out some of his more inflammatory pronouncements on these subjects. So suddenly it looks like they are even censoring their past or reinventing their past a fairer way of putting it in order to justify a different approach in the future. Uh, so as far as I’m concerned, the Constitution, if those who fundamentally questioned and challenged it now embrace it and hail it as theirs, then I think we we’re we’re home and dry. I think the Constitution is for everyone now and and no one is really challenging it anymore. Am I right? [laughter] Do you want me to answer the question or you going to ask me another question? [laughter] I think I think we can move on to the next part of this which is um quick rap to say I just wanted to add just this. The constitution as we look at it today is not a constitution which has remained static. It’s not a constitution which exists on the same premises that it did at the birth or the founding moment of the constitution. The constitution truly truly is a constitution which respects an Indian ethos. Uh on the one hand our constitution places a very great importance on individual autonomy which is the product of a western liberal constitutional [snorts] thought but equally contemplates restrictions on the autonomy of the individual. The constitution therefore does recognize that India inheres as much as in the individual as in the community of citizens in which an individual resides where whether it’s in the villages, the towns, the the the intermediate areas, the metropolitan areas and in the nation ultimately the constitution speaks therefore of individual rights but equally of individual duties which have come into the constitution. It speaks of areas of local self-governance like the panchiads. It speaks of the diversity of the nation in terms of the administration of the scheduled areas, the tribal areas. So in that sense I do believe that though the constitution when it was formulated came into existence in the backdrop of the government of India act of 198 1935 because there had to be some blueprint for governance on the basis of which a new document would emerge. The constitution has really completely evolved over the last 75 years and that I believe is the sense of stability of the constitution. that it is able to absorb emerging thoughts, ideas, changing ideas, uh the challenges which have confronted the nation. The constitution was predominantly interpreted by the courts to be a unitary constitution in the ‘9s,50s and 1960s because you know there was a fear as to whether India would survive as a nation. A fear which Dr. Tambbitkar himself expressed in the constituent assembly particularly in his uh speech on the 26th of November 1949 over a period of time as the polity has matured as the threat of secession is no longer really in that sense a valid threat you find that the constitution has been interpreted to give greater power to the states. So as the polity has evolved, as a state of democracy has evolved, so also the interpretation of the constitution has evolved. The challenges which we faced during the years of the emergency led to an interpretation of the constitution which did less service to the letter of the constitution and more service to the spirit of the constitution by reading due process into the uh articles of the constitution. So I think that in a sense really reflects the true stability and the value of the constitution, the ability to adapt uh while at the same time maintaining the core principles of of of democratic governance intact. Hence our living constitution. Exactly. Um but that that brings me to my first question under this rapid fire section which is if the constitution is a living document, how old does it feel to you today? Is it like a wise elder, a struggling adult, or a restless teenager? Or the third is a restless teenager. I would think uh a little bit of all of them. [laughter] you know, a young adult meeting the new challenges of the age of the social media, of the internet, uh, a restless teenager, yearning for change for a better future and a wise adult which has changed, which has seen the changing seasons. Uh, [applause] and [cheering] so I I believe it represents a whole cycle of life. Very well said, Dr. one constitutional value you think India needs to urgently reclaim reclaim that implies a value that we have lost I’m not sure we’ve lost anything so I I I mean I I think we we we’ve done and thanks to successive judges as well we’ve tried to uphold pretty much all all that’s in the constitution so what do we need to reclaim I’m going to take a take a pass on that one because honestly to reclaim something you really have to say we’ve lost this we need to get it Perhaps the the safe answer would be constitutional morality again to constantly work with the spirit of what was intended by the founders even as we adjusted to prevailing circumstances, new challenges and so on. I mean, one thing I’d love to see changing in the working of the constitution, this blessed judicial pendency, the number of cases piling up in all the levels of the courts is insane. Do you think artificial intelligence can kindly go through all of these blessings [laughter] and give us some some sort of suggested judgment so we can clear the backlog? [applause] I’ll look for you to answer that. You want me to answer this [laughter] one? Put you on the spot. I’ll I’ll tell you a I’ll tell you an answer to this. I had a case of a student with 88% disability who wanted admission to a medical college in India. That student was rejected for admission by three expert committees. If we had given the decision to artificial intelligence, they would have said it’s contrary to the law and the student can get cannot get admission. We said the student has to be admitted because a brilliant student from Mumbai who had an 88% disability and we felt we must give that student a chance at life. So you know in that sense I think uh human decision- making may be imperfect. We are fallible as judges we are fallible as intellectuals as lawyers as citizens but I would still trust the human element in in judging [applause] So in some cases your grandchildren will get justice for something you filed today. Having said that, I mean there have to be fundamental reforms in the judicial structure because even if India is to go into a 10 trillion economy or a $30 trillion economy, the fundamental reforms which are now necessary and the next generation of reforms are in the judicial system because unless we have respect for the rule of law, we are not going to have business and investment which will in that sense flourish in thrive. Right. Um so critical reforms to uh the appointment process, the procedural aspects of uh judicial review, the unnecessary appeals. Unfortunately, you find in Indian courts that people who want to defeat or delay justice can do so without fear of consequences. And I have seen that happen throughout my career as a judge. It’s a cause of great concern. I think we have to meet it head on and and press for change in in in the legal and judicial system. Thank you. Um Dr. Thur, one directive principle you wish could be converted into fundamental right today. You really should be asking all the judges these questions. Uh you were happy when I asked you this question. Um, you know, again, I honestly think the fundamental rights are pretty complete in not themselves. It’s the way in which we implement some of these rights. I mean, uh, I’m troubled, for example, by the marital rape exception. Uh, there’s an example where the crime of rape, which involves violence, is what ought to be punished rather than making an exception for who does the rape on the grounds of a a marital contract. There are very many cases where separated couples end up with the wife being raped and the husband getting away with it because the marital rape applies until their person is divorced. Now there’s an example of something which and I would like to see the the the the rights reflected whether it’s through the law through judicial pronouncements where honestly at the moment politically no one seems to have the courage in our system to challenge marital rape. It’s still an exception. It’s still not It’s still excusable under the law, but at some point we got to draw the line and say this isn’t about sex or marital rights. It’s about violence. Absolutely. Justice, my next question is for you. If Ambedkar were alive today, what do you think he’d be the most proud of and what would he be the most disappointed by? I have to answer the question right [laughter] now. Well, I think Dr. Ambbeaker would be really proud of the fact that the constitution is not just being applied in courtrooms but across the length and breadth of India in in our streets in our villages that is being worked on by people as the people’s document. I think that he would be really proud OF [applause] I think what Dr. Dr. Ambedkar would be really disappointed by is the extent of discrimination which still is faced by segments of our society for whom he stood for. Uh when a student at the IIA commits suicide uh because they you know because of a variety of circumstances uh young innocent and valuable productive lives being lost of students who commit suicide. I think he would have been very very despondent at that kind of discrimination uh which still is reality in India. We do want to invite a few questions from the audience but um the first word that comes to your mind when I say Dr. Man Singh, the man you dedicated this book to. You see, he he embodied in many ways the spirit of the constitution. That’s why that’s why I dedicated it to him because he he was a democrat to the core, deeply compassionate. So he cared about the people and at the same time somebody had to work the levers of of governance and power and law and so on. So that’s why I chose to dedicate the book to to Dr. Manuan Singh. When you think in terms of um of uh Justice Jand’s last answer, that’s something that really struck me because even during the Delhi launch of this book, one of the comments somebody made is very striking how they’d heard an illiterate woman who obviously couldn’t have read the constitution citing the constitution as the basis for her rights to demand something. And that people have now learned and justice is so right. People have now learned that this book whether they’ve read it or not whe they understand every provision or not gives them certain rights within India to to lay claim to. And I think in many ways that’s the great thing and here at Manmoon seeing born in a village in Pakistan a refugee in our country growing up through sheer hard work hard studies scholarships uh you know professional rise coming up and being the person entrusted with the task of of running this constitution um in the name of on behalf of people who unlike him hadn’t risen from the circumstances of their birth but whose rights also in here in this document. I think that’s what made it so special. [applause] [cheering] Justice, the first thought that comes to your mind when I say one nation, one election, u I’ve said that before the joint parliamentary committee just a couple of weeks ago. Uh not violative of the basic structure of the constitution but work in progress where the draft amendment can be improved upon. Same question to you as well. Yeah. You know my my problem with that I mean in no in theory it’s fine. We had one nation one election in 1952 57 6267. Why don’t we have it today? Because we have a parliamentary system and not a presidential one. So if any government loses its majority and falls election cycles go wonky. And that’s why today why is it that every six months there’s an election in some state or the other? Because state governments have risen and fallen at different times. whenever they had a government that lost his majority or whatever and so and this has also happened at the center right not every central government has finished a full term and therefore every everything has gone out of sync I can’t understand how you can prevent this from happening and still be democratic if you want to declare one nation one election you squeeze everybody in first of all you are bridging some some assemblies in order to make them conform to the so you’re actually being undemocratic because you’re cutting short the terms to which they’ve been elected and you’re prologing some others which is undemocratic because you’re giving some uh assemblies a longer term of office in order to reach the arbitrary date. You do all of that. So you’re undemocratic twice over then you have an election and for whatever reason in one state there’s a majority government another state there isn’t a coalition partner suddenly pulls out the government falls. What do you do? You’re going to have presidents rule for the remaining three and a half four years. If so, where’s democracy? Or you have an election, which is what the constitution prescribes, in which case where’s your one nation, one election calendar. It’s the feasibility that I’m worried about. I love the idea in principle. I just think in practice in a parliamentary system, it cannot work. We’ll again be back to the same mess we are in now in another 20, 30 years. Can actually can I just respond to that Shashi? uh you know when the constitution was framed uh as I said uh the constitution is not framed on the postulate that asymmetrical elections to parliament and the state legislatures are part of the basic structure in fact as we know initially we did have elections which were you know to the to parliament and the state legislatores which were held at the same time it’s when the new states came into being that you know the problem really arose after the states reorganization act started coming to force. Now the provision for uh you know truncated elections initially is a transitional provision so that once you’ve brought parliament and the state legislatures in conformity after the first elections after the notified date thereafter all elections to parliament and the state legislatores would be held at one and the same time. What happens is as uh as uh Sh said you know what happens when s state legislature is dissolved and elections are held prematurely. At that point the voters are informed in advance that the next round of elections which would be held would be for the period which remain for the remaining the remainder of the term of that state legislature. The difficulty would have been if after elections are held the term of that legislature is truncated. Now in a parliamentary form of democracy after elections are held the term can always be truncated where the government loses its majority and the chief minister or in the case in in in the union government the prime minister and the cabinet the council of ministers recommend dissolution. But the one nation one election the proposed constitutional amendment does not do that. What it does is as a part of the transitional arrangement it postulates that the first elections for the remainder of the period would be for the conformity to be brought about both at the national and the and the state level. Thereafter you will have the cycle of of uh the same election uh taking place for parliament and and the state the state legislatores. The basic question that we have to ask ourselves is this. Can the country afford the luxury of the [snorts] country being constantly in the state of elections? Model code of conduct all over the country. uh no serious work of governance being done in some state or the other constantly because they’re in an election mode. I don’t think we can afford that luxury. We have to focus on development as opposed to you know just being constantly in a state of uh electoral politics. That’s my concern. I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t know how it’s going to work in practice. That’s my my next question to Dr. And I have to do this. Uh the next vice president of India, what comes to your mind? No idea. I think I think uh some people tell me it might be Dhan Chandra. I don’t honestly there’s no clue. The government has given no one any clue as to what’s happening. But the fact is that it will be somebody nominated by the ruling party because they have a comfortable majority unlike the president where all the state assemblies also vote for the vice president. It’s just the two houses of parliament. you already know uh who has the majority and it’s very much the ruling party. Just as the first word that comes to your mind when I say youth uh the hope and future of the nation [applause] Dr. Tuur when I say India my motherland I I I love it. It belongs to me and I belong to it. [applause] And justice when I say I I am un international yet truly Indian. Hey, [cheering] [applause] wonderful. Have you got a potential politician sitting right here? He knows what to say. [applause] Been an incredibly extraordinary conversation to be able to listen to two of the finest minds of our time. It’s uh been nothing short of inspiring and as someone who stumbled upon law not knowing where it’s going to lead. Uh moderating this exchange has been the greatest honor of my life. So thank you so much. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you very much. [applause] It’s a great experience. Brilliant afternoon really. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you Shashi for uh writing this book for embracing this occasion with your presence. It’s been a great honor. And now to close this conversation, um I’d like to call upon the person who’s made this possible. Um he’s the reason we’re here today. He built this platform from the ground up and created space for young people like me who were terrified of Mike and still be terrified but have the guts to come up on stage and interview these fine men. Uh he’s our mentor, our biggest cheerleader and the calm in the middle of every storm. Rishab I just want to say thank you from all of us and it’s my honor to invite you to give the vote of thanks [applause] [cheering] thank you uh hi thanks I don’t know song is unnecessary for me did you guys like the conversation balcony no noise [cheering] both the both these gentlemen together for the very first time can we hear once for them please. [cheering] [applause] I am uh delighted that we were able to do our small bit in getting the two of them together. Usually I’m used to talking to uh people who are below the age of 19 and therefore I speak what comes to my heart and then I just say it. But often I’m told saying you should think and then speak and not speak and then think. And therefore I’ve written something in the form of a vote of thanks. Please bear with me as I read it out. It’s also inspired by a gentleman who are sitting next to because he says everything in verse. So I’ve tried to put things down in verse. If India were a case, we we are still mid-trial with altercations ongoing and new evidence on packs Indica’s fate surfacing steadily as time rewinds and ideologies debate. But today we heard from the voices who orchestrate where the case would go. One wields the gavl and the other the pen. And in this conversation, both reminded us time and again that the battle of belonging might still be underway. But when in doubt, the constitution leads the way. It it isn’t a relic of the past. It’s a living promise built to last. From striking down bonds that rigged the game to acknowledging the right to love without shame. From saluting our soldiers in operations in Dur to calling out the emergency with integrity pure in a country that both needs and sees law and order where every second person thinks they harvest spectre or my cross. I’m always pleasantly discombobulated whenever I see power, intellect, and humility coincide and rise above self, not for applause or thirst, but to deliver one narrative that the nation comes first. And [applause] and to see these giants for the first time walk together side by side at this organization fills my heart with gratitude deep from inside. They could have they could have chosen any platform any media state but they chose a nonprofit that brings together every school and college under one page and that my friends is enough evidence of the unflinching belief that they have that you are the generation that will make this a vix nation. First to justice Dva Chandraud, thank you for accepting our invite and for always being the nation’s guiding light. For letting women into Sabriala with grace and for ensuring privacy to found its rightful place. You honored autonomy, upheld dignity, stood tall, and for anyone still wondering why am I a Hindu, you restored land and allotted space to every faith for one and for all. When the minority shrinks and the unheard plead, your court became refuge for the most in need. For those most in need. Today again was a masterclass in law. Irreverently intellectual yet profoundly raw. May your egalitarian worldview show us the way as we soon enter 15 years of nurturing tomorrow’s leaders today. Thank you, sir. [applause] And and now to a gentleman who whose name does ignite not just identity but ideation’s light. A mentor a wonderland of words as Anjeni said whose resolute conviction outlast outlast headlines and hurts with over a decade of service both quiet and grand. He’s lent us his wisdom his heart and his hand. To the chairperson of our adviser board my sincerest gratitude. A man whose aerudition and empathy blaze where intellect dazzles and values reside. He walks not with pride, prejudice or punditry, but with conscience as his guide. When he first met me, believe it or not, I was half my size. And I was ambivalent, incoherent between articulation and drives. And to be honest, I still am. I don’t know what he saw, but with sagacious resolve and a $5 million smile, he lent me his grace and helped build a model UN into a movement to United Nations that has now produced various elected leaders for the land. His words like article 32 in might protect what’s just in democracy’s fight, not merely by statute or legal decree, but as a moral compass when hearts cease to see. So thank you sir to the both of you for letting a young small town female lawyer from Ranchi who is as iron as one can be hold the gav as this literary hearing began to unravel not just to launch a book but to launch a thought that the constitution must be lived and not just taught. Now to the lawyers, the law students, the utopian doers, and the pragmatic dreamers in today’s court. Know that this book isn’t just academic sport. It is exhibit A in the case for who we are and primacy proof that India will go far. Read it not just for the citations or exams, but to grasp the journey of India from midnight to this millennium. For liberty isn’t inherited, it’s litigated each day. And democracy survives when we find the way. So before I rest my case today, let me say if life were a test match we play, not just the India versus England one, which I’m sure all of us are watching, and the world was watching from every stand, then these two men would be India’s opening pair. Calm, [applause] [cheering] calm under pressure, steady and wise. Calm under pressure, steady and wise, leaving the bouncers, timing the drives. And with this engaging colloqui as your guide book in spark, let this idea of India light your path through every error of darkness or gremlin in your way. Because I believe the constitution isn’t just something to obey. It’s something to live every single day. With that, let’s call it, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, as it is, end of days play. [applause] May I may I now request uh somebody who’s like I said who’s inspired me to write this in verse to come up and to felicitate the two gentlemen uh Dr. Nadir God Rodri if you can come up please and do the honors. Heat. Heat.