At a time when the country is being broken apart based on identities, we need to draw on one of our core strengths — fraternity — which assures the dignity of all individuals.
Published Mar 25, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 25, 2025 | 2:05 PM
Callous disrespect of Constitutional mandates should concern us all, and not be ignored on the premise that it affects ‘someone else’ and not us. (iStock)
Synopsis: In a democracy, the opinions of the people and the Opposition have to be given their due space in decision-making and not humiliated or disrespected as being done currently. Being in a majority and flexing muscles to arbitrarily pass laws and draft policies may get appreciation and admiration from the ‘yea-sayers’, but in principle it violates Constitutional mandates.
‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ – John Acton.
The Constitution of India, which defines the country as a Union of States, with a parliamentary system of government, a federal structure, and a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic was not forcibly thrust upon us — but given to us by ourselves.
Callous disrespect of Constitutional mandates should concern us all, and not be ignored on the premise that it affects ‘someone else’ and not us.
Most of us are smart enough to have figured out by now that identities are being used to divide us in a way that takes away our own humanity, becoming mute spectators of violations.
Among the innumerable upheavals that the country is currently reeling under, attempts by the elected government to destabilise the federal structure is creating unrest within and outside Parliament.
Three examples of this process is evident in the context of Amendments made to three laws in the past year.
The move to bring in a nominee by the Prime Minister (instead of the Chief Justice of India) into a three-member committee (with the Prime minister and the leader of the Opposition), to decide on the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, now gives two votes out of three to the government in power.
This is obviously unfair and skewed, reducing a vital Constitutional appointment to a political appointment. This kind of casual breakdown of Constitutional structures suggests that any party that comes to power can make its own rules, possibly even do away with elections altogether, ushering in a dictatorial or autocratic system.
We can no longer expect the Election Commissioner to be a moral watchdog that protects the interest of the nation, but rather a lap dog that would dance according to the will of whichever government they are rooting for, invalidating (quite possibly permanently) the dream of ‘free
and fair elections’.
This action raises a crucial legal question on whether Parliament can bypass a Constitution Bench judgment without giving explicit reasons for doing so. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has further warned that the push for ‘One Nation, One Election’ can further destabilise
elections by opening the door for horse-trading, shrinking public participation, centralisation of politics as also logistic issues.
Further, this encroaches on state autonomy and will not stand to judicial scrutiny.
In February 2025, following strong opposition, including nationwide strikes and legal representations from the lawyers and the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Union government withdrew the contentious Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which sought to amend the Advocates Act, 1961, which has been governing the legal profession for over six decades.
Advocates argue that these Amendments would undermine the “autonomy and independence of the bar”, restrict protests, and give excessive power to the government.
The proposed amendment would allow the Centre, through Section 49B, to issue directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) which is an independent regulatory body for the legal profession in the country and also nominate up to three members to the BCI.
Political interference would essentially break another of the tottering pillars of democracy — the judiciary.
Interestingly, Section 35A visualises a country without strikes or boycotts by lawyers and
transferring powers from the BCI to the government. Any form of abstention from work or obstruction to court functioning could be considered as misconduct and punishable.
Further the entry of foreign law firms, particularly dealing with international arbitration, and lawyers could be regulated by the central government.
The Bill also introduces Section 49B, empowering the Centre to issue binding directions to the BCI, set bar council eligibility criteria, and regulate the BCI’s oversight of state bar councils.
Section 48B authorises the BCI to dissolve a state bar council and replace it with a committee, if it believes the council is unable to discharge its functions effectively. As it often does, more to suppress dissent than ensure honest reassurance, the Ministry claims that these initiatives are necessary to address “contemporary challenges and meet the needs of a growing nation” aligning with ‘global best practice’.
The draft University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, 2025, is intended to ‘transform’ recruitment and promotion of faculty members across higher education institutions in the country.
It will give centrally-appointed governors (Chancellor) overarching power to select and
appoint Vice-Chancellors of various universities, with any violation attracting debarment from participating in the UGC schemes and denying funding under the UGC Act, this in spite of education falling under the concurrent list.
There are concerns that this would undermine the Constitutional rights of states over higher education institutions, The Sarkaria Commission has already recommended that in the field of education, the Centre was expected to set norms and standards, with professional bodies like the UGC responsible for oversight, while actual implementation should be left to the states.
Many other examples abound of these targeted attempts to break down the federal structure.
In 2023, RN Ravi the Governor of Tamil Nadu demonstrated this by indefinitely withholding several Bills and proposals submitted by the government of the state, forcing the latter to take him to the Supreme court referring to Article 200.
The apex court directed that the Governor could not stay silent and would have to communicate on reasons for withholding assent.
The recent push by the Centre for a three-language policy recommendation by the draft National Education Policy has caused further unrest. Since October 2024, the Centre has withheld funds due to Tamil Nadu under the Samagra Shiksha programme for refusing to join the Prime Minister Schools for Rising India (PMSHRI) initiative.
Tamil Nadu has opposed the three-language formula in schools being made mandatory for several reasons. There is a real danger that Hindi would be pushed as the official language of communication causing other languages to gradually wither away. Further, governments struggle to retain children in public schools, and children struggle even with two languages along with all the other subjects.
Opposition parties have also been protesting against the fiscal discrimination against non-BJP ruled states. The Centre, while framing policies, fails to take into account the heterogeneity of India making cooperation between the Centre and the state difficult. There is little constructive debate taking place in the houses of Parliament these days. The political ideology influences all the processes of policy making and law making.
The alacrity with which existing structures are being broken down should fill us with a deep sense of alarm irrespective of which political party we are rooting for.
What becomes clear is the primary intent of the current government seems to be to undermine all those structures that hold the country together as a democracy. In the absurd and unrestrained hunger for power, the so-called ‘collateral damage’ would be a breakdown of institutions and state powers that cannot easily be retrieved.
A state of uncertainty will further lead to a state of anarchy, and anarchy is the best way to further unleash state power on targeted individuals and communities. In India, currently everyone knows who the individuals and communities that are being targeted.
In 1919, Adv. Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew opposed the Rowlatt Act, 1919, which granted the British government sweeping powers to arrest and detain individuals without trial in India. This struggle must be rekindled.
Unless active steps are taken to reclaim federalism, states may end up spending a lot of their time just demanding and protesting for their due share of resources and autonomy. This takes away from their crucial administrative and other responsibilities. The Centre needs to be mindful of this factor.
The efforts by the Union government to undermine the neutrality of the Governor and pushing
obviously partisan individuals can have long reaching consequences. Governors cannot become minions of the Centre punishing and penalising what this clique perceives to be recalcitrant children. When states demonstrate autonomy in decision making on state policies or appointments, it only strengthens federalism and cannot be perceived as a dangerous enemy to a notion of ‘one nation’.
More, not less, fiscal federalism is the need of the hour. Institutional frameworks have to be strengthened such that all states benefit not one at the cost of the other — or using one state to get another to toe the line. This is most unbecoming of a people-elected Union government.
The Rajmannar Committee set up by the DMK government to examine Centre-State relations had submitted its report in 1971, and is considered a benchmark in the study of the working of the federal constitution of India.
The Committee had recommended that Articles 256, 257, 339(2) and 344(6) empowering the central government to issue directions to the state governments should be omitted. Further, that an interstate council should be set up and consulted on matters related to defence, foreign affairs, interstate communications and currency.
At a time when the country is being broken apart based on identities, we need to draw on one of our core strengths — fraternity — which assures the dignity of all individuals.
In spite of the division of powers between the states and the Union government being well-defined and with relatively more power and advantage vested with the latter, the Centre has abused its powers.
There is a general disrespect for institutions, existing norms and protocols and the consequences of actions. People are being openly taunted based on the states they come from, the language they speak and the religion they belong to. This is a mockery of frameworks that hold the country from
slipping into anarchy and dictatorship.
When one elected representative undermines another, then democracy gets undermined. The states from the South are being openly discriminated against for claiming nothing more than their due rights. Northern states which blatantly privilege the virulent ideology of a fascist state are like the favoured child, even as many of their citizens migrate out for lack of basics such as employment, shelter, security, social entitlements, etc. A mono culture largely defined by a narrow group, has to be challenged.
In a democracy, the opinions of the people and the Opposition have to be given their due space in decision making and not humiliated or disrespected as being done currently. Being in a majority and flexing muscles to arbitrarily pass laws and draft policies may get appreciation and
admiration from the ‘yea-sayers’, but in principle it violates Constitutional mandates.
The Constitution is under threat by these open violations. A Union government with unrestricted and unrestrained powers is like a raging spirit holding a match stick and a can of gasolene. Even a small spark can trigger unthinkable destruction which may take years to undo.
States are left fighting for basic rights rather than fulfilling their administrative and other mandates. It is time for we, the people, to reclaim the constitution, the idea of federalism in law and spirit.
The political ideology should be better governance and to enhance the Constitution of India and not to undermine the basic principles enshrined in the constitution. The regional representation, division of powers and respect for the diversity should transcend all the vote bank based political gimmicks. The common voter should be aware of this threatening development and swing into action with all the intensity. The good of every citizen of this country should prevail at any cost.
Hence, it is a collective responsibility and duty to respect, protect and enhance the Constitution of India.
(The author is Director, St. Josephs college of Law, Bengaluru. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
