The battle today is not for the abstract ideals of Constitution — it is for democracy itself
'Samvidhan khatre mein hai' has been the rallying cry of Congress since the beginning of its campaign for the 2024 general elections. After the polls, the party doubled down on this narrative, directing its state units to conduct Samvidhan Bachao rallies across the country. Several such rallies were organised in April and May in many states, including Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. On June 8, the Yatra began in Goa. Over the past year, Congress has left no occasion to assert that our Constitution is under threat.
But a deeper, more pressing question must be asked, not just by the Opposition, but by every citizen: If the Constitution is in danger, what exactly needs to be rescued, safeguarded, and nourished? The complexity of the question demands that we ascribe an identity to the Constitution. And this identity is connected to another core idea of the Republic: Democracy.
From the abuse of constitutional offices like that of the Governor — as the Supreme Court emphasised in the Tamil Nadu Governor case — to the trampling of rights, threats to the foundational essence of democracy are real. Notably, it is often rooted in constitutional structures and silences. For instance, the Constitution does not explicitly ask the Governor or the Speaker to shed all partisan loyalties in their functioning. However, our demand that they rise above party lines stems from the democratic values the Constitution is meant to embody. The Constitution, in this sense, becomes an accessible language through which we reassert and reinforce democratic values in public discourse.
However, this language is gradually losing its resonance. When the essence of constitutional arrangements is repeatedly subverted for short-term political gain, non-constitutional justifications begin to suffice. And when courts do intervene, often the independent institutions are blamed, but not the style of governance. So, the political and intellectual struggle today cannot be framed merely as a defence of the Constitution. It must go deeper and become a struggle to resurface, reiterate, and reassert the 'identity' of the Constitution and the democratic values it is meant to uphold. And to do so, we must shift the pivot of the discourse from 'Constitution' to 'Democracy'.
There are two long-term dangers to the overreliance on the Constitution as the central narrative. The first is political. If those raising the slogan today come to power, they would find it difficult to pursue the structural changes necessary for democratic repair. Any attempt to redesign constitutional structures and institutions, however justified, would risk the charge of hypocrisy. Having opposed constitutional change while in opposition, they would be accused of undermining it once in office. They might also face the slogan 'Samvidhan khatre mein hai.'
The second is intellectual. An overemphasis on the Constitution risks stifling critical engagement with it. After all, constitutional provisions were used to enable the imposition of Emergency, legitimise central executive dominance, and allow repeated rights violations. In light of what the country has experienced over the past 75 years, a critical, reflective engagement with the Constitution is not only desirable, it is essential. But such a critique becomes difficult when the Constitution is treated as a flawless relic that must be defended at all cost.
Any discourse rooted in democracy is politically sharper. It is far harder for incumbents to deflect an opposition narrative grounded in loktantra. The government is, no doubt, elected constitutionally and acts largely within formal constitutional bounds. But that is precisely the issue: Constitutional form is being used to mask democratic erosion. The Constitution remains intact, but democracy appears to be backsliding. This distinction is crucial. The battle today is not for the Constitution in the abstract. It is for democracy itself.
The writer teaches law Jindal Global Law School. He was the 2023-24 Fox International Fellow at Yale University and Melbourne Law School
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
16 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Sweeping powers and the morality ruse
The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill and associated bills that were tabled in Parliament on Wednesday violate the principles that underlie the Constitution and the democratic polity. These bills are ill-conceived and are liable to be unfairly implemented. They seek to punish a person before the crime is proved, as they provide for the removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and ministers from office if they are arrested or detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for offences that attract a jail term of at least five years. The bills have been sent to a joint committee of parliament which is to return them before the next session so that they can be enacted at the in public office is important but it cannot be pursued by circumventing due process. The bills, if enacted, will become another weapon in the hands of the Central government to target Opposition parties and their ministers. Central investigative agencies, including the CBI and the ED, are now being used to hound politicians in the Opposition camp. At present, the law and its existing processes provide them cover but the proposed laws can remove all defences, exposing anyone to politically motivated, vindictive detention. These will be the new Article 356, without its safeguards and procedures, enabling the Central government to destabilise state governments. The bills are out of tune with the essential norms of parliamentary democracy and deal a blow to constitutional federalism. They challenge the separation of powers between the organs of state and give executive agencies unfettered power to dismiss elected government has sought to justify the bills on the ground of public interest and the need for elected representatives to be honest and above suspicion. But going by the Narendra Modi government's record, these ethical and moral arguments would be mere excuses for targeted actions against the opponents. Long-drawn legal processes and low rates of conviction may have prompted the government to explore quicker ways to get at its political opponents. The bills are not aimed at cleansing the political system but at weakening the Opposition. They are unlikely to pass the judicial muster, even if they get parliamentary approval, because they go against the basic tenet of the rule of law that no one can be held guilty till proven otherwise. The resignation of people holding office is a political matter between them, their parties, and the people. The law should have no role to play until they are proven guilty.
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi CM's attacker planned protest at Ramleela Ground against SC's stray dogs order
The man accused of attacking Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta during a public hearing has told investigators that he had planned to stage a protest at Ramleela Ground here against the Supreme Court's order on relocating stray dogs, like activist Anna Hazare did over corruption issue, police sources said on Thursday. Accused Rajeshbhai Khimji also told police that he had gone to Delhi chief minister's 'Jan Sunwai' programme on Wednesday to raise the issue of stray dogs. During interrogation, accused Rajeshbhai Khimji told police about his activities to prove himself as a staunch animal lover and was upset with the apex court's recent order on stray dogs in the national capital, they said. The Delhi Police is likely to take the accused to his native place in Rajkot, Gujarat as part of ongoing investigation, the sources said, adding that his mobile phone has been sent for forensic examination to ascertain if he deleted any crucial information before the assault. The police are ascertaining the claims made by Khimji, a 41-year-old autorickshaw driver, the sources said. The accused also told police that he had gone to Delhi chief minister's 'Jan Sunwai' programme on Wednesday to raise the issue of stray dogs. "The accused attacked the chief minister after he failed to raise the issue before her. He also told us that after the recent Supreme Court order to remove stray dogs from the streets in Delhi, he had a dream in which Lord Bhairav asked him to take up the cause of the poor animals," said a police source. Lord Bhairav is an incarnation of Hindu deity Shiva whose mount (vehicle) is a black dog. Khimji was sent to police custody for five days by a local court earlier in the day. During questioning, he also told police many "stories" including that in May he was in Ayodhya where he sat on a three-day hunger strike for welfare of monkeys there, the sources said. His mobile phone showed his pictures and videos in Ayodhya, they said. The Central agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau, are also helping the Delhi Police in the investigation, the police sources said. Khimji was arrested on Wednesday after he allegedly attacked the chief minister during a public hearing at her Civil Lines camp office. He has been booked under various charges including attempt to murder. The sources said that a police team may take the accused back to his native place in Gujarat to gather more information about his background, activities and possible motives behind the attack. His travel to Delhi is also being reconstructed in detail. "From the time he boarded a train to Delhi till he reached the CM's camp office, every step will be traced. CCTV footage along his route and in areas he visited in the city will be checked. We are also collecting details of places where he stayed and if anyone he met," said another source. The forensic team will examine the mobile phone of the accused to determine whether he attempted to erase digital evidence. "Deleted photos, videos, call records or any other data pointing towards prior planning will be retrieved and analysed," said the source. The accused further told investigators that he had staged a protest in Khodaldham in Rajkot earlier this year for the welfare of stray cattle, the sources said. During questioning, he also described himself as an animal lover who had worked in several places across Gujarat and other parts of the country in connection with animal-related issues. Earlier, Khimji's mother, Bhanu Khimjibhai Sakriya, had told reporters in Rajkot that her son was a dog lover and was upset over the Supreme Court's order directing authorities in the National Capital Region to pick up stray dogs and shift them to shelters. Investigators, however, maintained that the actual motive behind the assault was yet to be ascertained as interrogation was still underway. According to police records, Khimji has five criminal cases registered against him in Gujarat, including those related to assault and creating ruckus under the influence of alcohol. The Delhi Police is probing all possible angles in the attack. "Social media activity of the accused is under scanner. We are also examining whether there was any conspiracy behind the incident. Teams will also review visuals of the incident and how much time it took the security personnel to act against the attack," the source said. The sources said the accused told police he kept around 15-20 dogs in his village and wanted to raise the issue of what he claimed was the "life of three lakh dogs" before the chief minister.
Hans India
26 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Set To Announce Decision On Delhi's Controversial Stray Dog Mass Capture Order
The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce its decision on Friday regarding petitions seeking to suspend the controversial August 8 directive that mandated the capture of all stray dogs across Delhi and four neighboring districts including Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, and Faridabad. The ruling will determine whether these animals should be confined in designated shelters indefinitely. A three-member judicial panel headed by Justice Vikram Nath, alongside Justices Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, will determine the fate of the disputed order. The bench faces three primary options: completely suspending the directive, implementing modifications to address concerns raised by animal welfare organizations, or maintaining the current requirements as originally issued. The controversy began when Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan issued the sweeping August 8 order requiring the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and municipal agencies in the surrounding districts to collect all stray dogs within an eight-week timeframe. The directive explicitly prohibited the release of captured animals back onto streets, marking a significant departure from established animal welfare protocols. Under the original order, authorities received instructions to construct shelters capable of housing at least 5,000 animals within the same eight-week period. A subsequent written order issued on August 11 reinforced these requirements while incorporating additional welfare protections for animals held in custody, including provisions against mistreatment, starvation, and overcrowding. The ambitious scope of the mass capture program quickly generated intense opposition from animal rights advocates who characterized the measures as both cruel and legally problematic. Critics argued that the directive violated existing legislation, specifically the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control Rules, which establish different protocols for managing stray animal populations. Recognizing the mounting controversy and legal inconsistencies, Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai took the unusual administrative step of reassigning the case from the original bench to a larger three-judge panel led by Justice Nath. This larger bench conducted extensive hearings on August 14 before reserving judgment, which will now be delivered on Friday. During those deliberations, the expanded bench expressed sharp criticism of both the Delhi government and civic authorities for their failure to implement existing regulatory frameworks designed to manage stray dog populations humanely. The court observed that while lawmakers had created comprehensive rules and regulations, enforcement remained inadequate, resulting in problems for both public safety and animal welfare. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, presented disturbing evidence of child injuries and fatalities resulting from dog attacks, describing these incidents as "shocking" cases of mutilation. He emphasized that immediate intervention was essential to protect public safety while maintaining that dogs should not be killed but rather separated, sterilized, and treated humanely. Mehta urged the court to develop an effective solution to address what he characterized as an escalating public health crisis. Animal welfare advocates mounted a strong counterargument through senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal, who represented NGO Project Kindness, along with Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sidharth Luthra representing various animal rights organizations. These legal representatives argued that the August 8 directions were both illegal and impractical, contending that existing statutory requirements mandate sterilization and vaccination procedures under Animal Birth Control Rules, followed by returning animals to their original locations rather than permanent shelter confinement. The animal welfare coalition warned that implementing a time-sensitive mass capture program without adequate, properly inspected facilities would inevitably result in animal cruelty. They challenged the factual basis for the emergency measures by citing government data presented to Parliament showing no recent fatalities from dog bites in Delhi, questioning whether the situation warranted such drastic intervention. Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, also appearing for the Delhi government, provided assurances that the administration would comply with whatever directives the court ultimately issued, regardless of whether the original order was maintained, modified, or suspended. The August 11 written directive had attempted to address animal welfare concerns by incorporating specific protections for captured dogs. These safeguards included prohibitions against mistreatment and starvation, requirements to prevent overcrowding, provisions for separating vulnerable animals, and mandates for timely veterinary care. The order also permitted adoption under strict conditions established by the Animal Welfare Board of India, while warning that any unauthorized release of adopted animals into public spaces would trigger severe consequences. The legal controversy originated from a tragic incident involving the death of a six-year-old girl from rabies following a dog bite. The original bench cited this case as evidence of "disturbing patterns" in dog-bite incidents and highlighted local agencies' apparent inability to maintain safe public spaces. This suo motu case reflected the court's concern about balancing public safety with animal welfare obligations. Thursday's proceedings saw a different bench decline an urgent listing request from an animal rights organization, effectively allowing the August 8 order to remain in effect temporarily. However, it subsequently became clear that the reserved judgment from Justice Nath's larger bench would be announced on Friday, potentially resolving the immediate uncertainty surrounding the controversial directive. The outcome of Friday's ruling will have significant implications for stray animal management policies across the National Capital Region. The decision will likely establish important precedents for balancing public safety concerns with animal welfare protections, potentially influencing similar situations in other Indian cities grappling with stray animal populations. The case has drawn widespread attention from both animal rights activists and public safety advocates, highlighting the complex challenges involved in managing urban stray animal populations. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the current mass capture approach continues, whether modifications can address legitimate concerns from both sides, or whether alternative approaches must be developed to protect both human safety and animal welfare in India's capital region.
