Day 13: “From Constituent Assembly to Constitutional Morality: The Journey of Affirmative Actions in India” by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Former Chief Justice of India

Event Date: 13th December 2025

Event brief description

Justice U.U. Lalit, while discussing comparative constitutional jurisprudence on equality, referred to key developments in United States constitutional law alongside Indian constitutional principles. He noted that the decision in Brown v. Board of Education marked a transformative moment in American constitutional history by holding that racial segregation in public education violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the US Constitution begins with “We the People,” Black Americans were historically excluded from its full protection, a reality corrected through judicial interpretation and constitutional amendments.

Justice Lalit emphasized that segregation is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of equality, a principle equally reflected in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. He discussed Bolling v. Sharpe, which extended equality principles to federal territories through the Fifth Amendment, and highlighted the role of Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Justice of the US Supreme Court.

While examining affirmative action, Justice Lalit referred to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, particularly Justice Powell’s opinion, which rejected racial quotas but allowed race to be considered as a limited “plus factor.” He contrasted this with the recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), where race-based admissions were held unconstitutional, illustrating the evolving and increasingly color-blind approach to equality in US jurisprudence.

Event Detailed Description

Justice U.U. Lalit, in his discussion on equality and affirmative action, drew extensively from comparative constitutional jurisprudence, particularly from the United States, to illuminate the evolving understanding of equality under constitutional law. He began by referring to Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark decision that dismantled racial segregation in public schools by holding that the doctrine of “separate but equal” is inherently unequal. Justice Lalit observed that despite the inclusive phrase “We the People” in the US Constitution, Black Americans were historically denied equal constitutional status, a gap addressed through the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in 1868.

He explained that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bears strong resemblance to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, both embodying the principle that equality must be substantive rather than merely formal. Segregation, he noted, creates systemic disadvantage and social stigma, thereby violating the core idea of equality. Justice Lalit further referred to Bolling v. Sharpe, where the US Supreme Court applied equality principles to federal actions through the Fifth Amendment, developing the doctrine of reverse incorporation. He also acknowledged the pivotal role of Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first Black Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Turning to affirmative action, Justice Lalit discussed Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, highlighting Justice Lewis Powell’s controlling opinion. Justice Powell rejected rigid racial quotas but permitted race to be used as one factor among many in admissions, introducing the concept of a neutral admissions framework. This approach allowed race to operate only as a contextual “plus factor,” a principle later reaffirmed in Rice v. Cayetano.

Justice Lalit contrasted this jurisprudence with the recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023), where the US Supreme Court held that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause. He noted that this decision signals a decisive shift towards a color-blind interpretation of equality in the United States. Finally, Justice Lalit situated these developments against the Indian constitutional experience, recalling State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan and the subsequent constitutional amendments, underscoring how different constitutional systems respond differently to historical inequality while remaining anchored to the shared ideal of equality.