Beyond Commemoration: Social Justice in a Transforming India

Observed annually on 20 February, the World Day of Social Justice in India must not become a mere ritual of remembrance but serve as a moment of reckoning to reaffirm constitutional commitments. Social justice, as envisioned by the Constitution, is a living obligation rooted in the Preamble’s promise of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Articles 14, 15 and 16 guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination and secure equal opportunity in public employment. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, while Article 21 has been interpreted to include the right to live with dignity. The Directive Principles under Articles 38 and 46 place an affirmative duty on the State to reduce inequalities and protect the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other vulnerable groups. Today, these provisions demand reflection not only on legal ideals but on their material realisation.

Despite the constitutional architecture, social justice in India remains uneven and incomplete. Structural inequality persists not primarily because of the absence of rights but because of the failure to translate those rights into institutions that reflect social diversity. Marginalised communities remain underrepresented across state structures, from universities and public employment to the judiciary and law enforcement. Reports and parliamentary statements continue to show high vacancy levels in reserved posts across central universities, public sector undertakings and constitutional bodies, weakening the redistributive intent of affirmative action. Social justice cannot advance where representation is symbolic rather than substantive.

The persistence of exclusion is also visible in the criminal justice system. Data released by the Ministry of Home Affairs over successive years indicate that Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and religious minorities are disproportionately represented among victims of custodial violence and deaths. Civil liberties organisations and parliamentary committees have repeatedly flagged the absence of independent investigation mechanisms and the low rate of accountability in such cases. Custodial spaces, meant to enforce the law, often become sites where structural power imbalances are reproduced, eroding constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.

The challenge, therefore, lies not in the absence of constitutional principles but in their uneven realisation, particularly as new domains such as artificial intelligence and digital governance reshape access to opportunity and power. Social justice must be assessed through empirical and disaggregated indicators, including access to quality education, healthcare, land ownership, secure livelihoods, political participation, digital connectivity and algorithmic accountability. Without measurable progress across both traditional and emerging spheres, constitutional equality risks remaining aspirational rather than genuinely transformative

Marginalisation and the Architecture of Exclusion & Exploitation

Marginalisation in India remains rooted in deeply embedded hierarchies of caste, religion, gender, disability and region, producing layered exclusions that endure despite protective laws. Housing, employment and access to public services continue to reflect structural inequities, from residential segregation and informal discrimination in urban labour markets to the persistence of manual scavenging and the concentration of vulnerable communities in hazardous, informal work — stark reminders that legislation alone cannot substitute for social transformation. At the same time, religious minorities increasingly confront barriers to equal citizenship through discriminatory rhetoric, targeted economic exclusion and social boycotts that chill expression, mobility and livelihood security. The normalisation of polarising narratives erodes constitutional secularism and weakens the foundational promise that citizenship is neither graded nor contingent — a fragility laid bare in the ethnic violence that engulfed Manipur, where fractures of identity translated into displacement, insecurity and the rupture of shared civic life. In such a climate, social justice is inseparable from the defence of pluralism, constitutional morality and equal belonging.

Further, gender injustice cuts across all social categories and deepens existing vulnerabilities. Despite improvements in education and health indicators, women’s workforce participation in India remains among the lowest globally, as reflected in World Bank data and International Labour Organisation statistics. Structural barriers such as disproportionate unpaid care work, documented in India’s Time Use Survey, occupational segregation, and inadequate workplace safety continue to constrain economic mobility. The persistence of sexual violence, including rape, and the helplessness of women in informal settlements, highlighted by UN-Habitat, reflect deeper failures of social protection. Even in professional spheres, global assessments such as the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report demonstrate enduring leadership gaps, which are further compounded for Dalit, Adivasi and minority women.

Disability and sexual orientation add further layers to exclusion. While the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, expanded legal recognition and mandated reservations, implementation gaps remain evident, as reflected in government monitoring under the Accessible India Campaign. Public infrastructure, transport systems and digital platforms frequently fail accessibility standards, limiting meaningful participation. Similarly, constitutional jurisprudence in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and NALSA v. Union of India affirmed the dignity and equality of LGBTQIA+ persons, yet the absence of a comprehensive anti-discrimination framework leaves queer citizens vulnerable in housing, employment and healthcare. Social justice, therefore, demands a transition from symbolic recognition to enforceable equality across intersecting identities.

Development, Environment and Indigenous Rights in the Nicobar Islands

The unresolved tension between economic development and social justice is sharply illustrated by the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island. The Union government’s integrated development plan envisages a transhipment port, airport, township and power infrastructure as part of a broader strategic vision for the region. While the project has received statutory clearances, parliamentary committees, environmental scientists and civil society groups have raised serious concerns regarding ecological impact and indigenous displacement.

Great Nicobar is home to the Shompen and Nicobarese communities, recognised as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups. Indian law provides specific protections for indigenous land and habitat through the Forest Rights Act and special regulations governing the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These safeguards draw constitutional strength from Article 21’s guarantee of life with dignity and Article 46’s mandate to protect tribal interests. Environmental impact assessments submitted for the project acknowledge large-scale deforestation and diversion of primary rainforest, raising questions about long term ecological sustainability in a region vulnerable to seismic activity and climate change.

The debate surrounding Great Nicobar is not a simplistic contest between conservation and growth. India’s strategic and economic interests in strengthening maritime infrastructure are legitimate, particularly in the Indo-Pacific context, as reflected in the Government of India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative. However, constitutional governance requires that development be participatory, transparent and rights-respecting, consistent with Article 21 jurisprudence elaborated by the Supreme Court in cases such as Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where tribal land protections were affirmed. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly emphasised that economic development cannot override the autonomy and consent of indigenous communities, including in Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment & Forests (Niyamgiri case), which upheld the centrality of Gram Sabha consent. These principles apply with equal force to island territories, where ecological fragility magnifies the consequences of large-scale intervention.

Social justice demands that indigenous peoples be treated not as impediments to national projects but as rights-bearing citizens with agency. International standards such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasise free, prior and informed consent, meaningful consultation and culturally appropriate rehabilitation. When development proceeds without these safeguards, it risks reproducing historical patterns of dispossession under the guise of national interest. This occasion, therefore compel a re-evaluation of how development is conceptualised and whose costs are rendered invisible.

Technology, Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Challenges

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) adds a decisive new layer to the social justice debate. India’s digital public infrastructure (DPI) has expanded welfare delivery, financial inclusion, and state capacity; yet, deep digital divides persist across rural and urban regions, as well as among gender and income groups. For those with limited connectivity or digital literacy, algorithm-mediated governance risks converting tech efficiency into a new axis of exclusion.

Research in technology ethics reveals that algorithmic systems frequently replicate biases ingrained in data and institutional history. In a society where caste, religion and region are encoded in language, names and geography, automated tools used in credit scoring, recruitment or predictive policing may entrench indirect discrimination at scale. Constitutional guarantees against arbitrariness apply equally to code; replacing human discretion with automated systems does not dilute the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and due process. Without transparency, auditability and effective avenues for redress, algorithmic governance can erode equality while concentrating power in opaque technical architectures.

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, affirms principles of consent and purpose limitation, yet concerns endure regarding surveillance, profiling, data monopolies and weak enforcement capacity. Responsible AI governance requires more than policy strategies or ethical guidance; it demands independent regulatory oversight, algorithmic impact assessments, robust grievance mechanisms and the embedding of constitutional values into system design, lest efficiency-driven systems optimise outcomes while entrenching structural disadvantage.

At the same time, AI can advance social justice if deployed with caution. Multilingual initiatives such as Bhashini can widen access to public services and legal information. Data analytics, combined with human oversight, can reduce welfare exclusion errors. Judicial digitisation under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project illustrates how technology can enhance access to justice when due process remains central. The challenge is not whether to adopt technology, but whether to govern it in a manner consistent with dignity, equity and accountability.

India’s social justice project now confronts a structural inflexion point. Structural disparities precondition access to opportunity; developmental ambition tests environmental and indigenous protections; technological transformation reshapes the meaning of equality itself. The Constitution remains the normative compass anchored in dignity, liberty, equality and fraternity. The unfinished task is to ensure that this compass disciplines governance, development and innovation alike, so that technological modernity strengthens rather than fractures the republic’s commitment to justice.

-  Amal Chandra is an Indian author, political analyst and columnist. His research and commentary have appeared in IJPA, Global Policy Journal, South Asian Voices, ORF, The Unpopulist, SAGE, and other leading publications, as well as in prominent dailies.