M. Nageswara Rao Open Letter to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Shri B. R. Gavai Respected Sir, With utmost respect, I write to address concerns arising from a statement attributed to Your Lordship in a post on X by ANI at 2:27 PM on October 12, 2025. The post quotes you as saying: Ratnagiri, Maharashtra | Chief Justice BR Gavai says, “I want to say that the Constitution given to us by Babasaheb Ambedkar is the very foundation on which our nation functions today. It is because of Babasaheb’s Constitution that we see India progressing on the path of development. We see our nation standing united, whether in times of war or in times of peace, even during internal emergencies, our country has remained intact (Akhand).
And when we compare ourselves with our neighbouring countries, whether it is Nepal, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka, the difference in their situations and ours, in my view, is because of the strength of the Indian Constitution. As Babasaheb Ambedkar rightly said, until social and economic democracy is achieved in this country, political democracy has no real meaning. The way we are building judicial infrastructure today is one of the means of ensuring that justice reaches the doorsteps of litigants. That is why we believe in decentralisation and are establishing judicial infrastructure across all places.
“ This statement raises concerns that I respectfully submit for your consideration:
1. Misattribution of the Constitution to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar The Indian Constitution was enacted by a Constituent Assembly of 299 members, with a Constitutional Adviser preparing the draft. On August 29, 1947, the Assembly formed a Committee to Scrutinise the Draft Constitution, comprising Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, K. M. Munshi, Saiyid Mohd. Saadulla, B. L. Mitter, and D. P. Khaitan. This committee, chaired by Dr. Ambedkar due to his role as Law Minister, was tasked with scrutinising the draft prepared by the Constitutional Adviser, incorporating decisions already made by the Assembly. The committee’s role was akin to an editorial board,
with Dr. Ambedkar as its chief editor, not the author. The committee submitted its scrutiny report to the Assembly, which debated, amended, and adopted it as deemed appropriate. Just as an Act of Parliament (with 543 Lok Sabha and 250 Rajya Sabha members) is not attributed to an individual MP, minister, or chairman of select committee, and a Supreme Court judgment is not credited to a single judge, even the Chief Justice, the Constitution cannot be attributed solely to Dr. Ambedkar. It is surprising, therefore, to hear Your Lordship refer to it as “Babasaheb’s Constitution,”
as this attribution lacks historical accuracy and appears influenced by political narratives rather than verifiable facts.
2. Effectiveness of the Constitution Your Lordship’s claim that the Constitution has kept India united and prosperous compared to neighbouring countries is respectfully contested. India, as a civilisational nation, has managed to survive despite the Constitution, which is the root cause of many of the country’s enduring challenges. The Constitution, colonial in nature and largely a paraphrased version of the Government of India Act, 1935, is fundamentally anti-Hindu,
denying #EqualRightsForHindus compared to those granted to Muslims and Christians, who are maliciously classified as minorities. India’s trajectory would have been far more promising had the Constitution been grounded in the nation’s ancient civilisational ethos. I respectfully urge Your Lordship to reflect on these points, as the judiciary’s role in upholding historical accuracy and truth is paramount. Yours sincerely,
