Former Supreme Court judge J. Chelameswar on Saturday (May 30, 2026) expressed doubts over how effectively the Constitution’s fundamental rights protect common people. He said an audit on the matter could yield “very uncomfortable” findings.

He made the critical remarks while inaugurating a two-day national conference at the Government Law College, Ernakulam, on ‘Shaping the Future of Legal Education: Innovation, Practice and Reforms’.

“The Constitution textually guarantees fundamental rights. However, if a proper audit is conducted on how the guarantees work to protect the common man in practice, the report would be very uncomfortable. I do not have any statistics. I am speaking from my life experiences,” Mr. Chelameswar said.

“All that it requires to deprive the liberty of an individual is that somebody in the government must believe that the activity of the person is detrimental to the sovereignty of the country,” he added.

He stressed that in which direction the constitutional system is progressing is a matter for each one in the judicial fraternity to examine.

He said it was important to understand what is wrong with the system to innovate constitutional law. In the field of private law, history and technology played a crucial role in innovation or reforms, he added.

Noting that there is a renewed interest in the study of law compared to the olden days, the former judge urged law students to have clarity on the purpose of the entire legal system by the time they complete their studies. “Ultimately, it is all meant for the people, for maintaining an orderly society. Powerful people can always take care of themselves. The weaker sections of society may not be able to defend themselves. It is for them that we must study, understand, and improve the system,” he said.

K. Chandru, former judge of the Madras High Court, was the chief guest at the inaugural ceremony. He questioned the argument that an “Indianised jurisprudence” needs to be brought in place of the present system, which is often viewed as a colonial legacy. “Some judges keep saying certain interpretations should be thrown out because we have our own interpretations. If you think the law is universal and that there are certain principles that cannot be compromised, then we should also welcome knowledge from all places,” he said.

He said it was high time legal studies covered topics such as poverty and the caste system. “We have to approach legal studies by asking how they are relevant to the larger population of the country. Law colleges nowadays do not discuss contemporary issues that really affect all of us. When a court fails or takes a different track, we can take a stand that it cannot be allowed,” he added.