The Constitution of India establishes a constitutional democracy founded on liberty, equality, and fraternity. However, the persistence of caste-based inequality raises serious questions about whether these constitutional ideals have been realised in practice. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, consistently warned that political democracy without social democracy would remain fragile and incomplete. He viewed caste as the greatest obstacle to equality and fraternity in Indian society.

This paper examines the relationship between constitutional democracy and caste from an advocate’s perspective. It analyses Ambedkar’s writings and Constituent Assembly debates alongside landmark Supreme Court judgments to evaluate how the Indian judiciary has responded to caste-based injustice. Particular emphasis is placed on State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, which reflects early judicial resistance to caste-based affirmative action, and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (the Mandal Commission case), which represents a turning point in judicial recognition of social backwardness.