The arguments made in favour of protection of oppressed groups were rooted in the historical suffering and social discrimination they faced. Members of the Depressed Castes emphasised that their disabilities were caused by the social norms and moral values of caste society. They argued that society had used their services and labour but kept them at a social distance, refusing to mix with them, dine with them, or allow them entry into temples.

J. Nagappa from Madras articulated the collective resolve of the oppressed, stating, "We have been suffering, but we are prepared to suffer no more." This reflected a growing consciousness and assertion of their rights. Dalits demanded an end to all caste oppression and reservation of seats in government bodies as protective measures.

Another significant argument came from those who identified the ordinary villagers as the "real minorities" needing protection. They pointed out that these villagers were exploited by money-lenders, landlords, zamindars, and malguzars. The lack of elementary education among them made them vulnerable to such exploitation.

However, some members also recognised that protection and safeguards alone could not resolve all problems. They argued that social discrimination could not be erased only through constitutional legislation; there had to be a change in the attitudes within society. The Constituent Assembly ultimately recommended that untouchability be abolished, Hindu temples be thrown open to all castes, and seats in legislatures and jobs in government offices be reserved for the lowest castes.