The battle today is not for the abstract ideals of Constitution — it is for democracy itself

Written by Anmol Jain
'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:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Sharing video footage of polling stations breaches voters' privacy: EC officials

Amid demands to make public webcasting footage of polling stations, Election Commission officials on Saturday said such a move is violative of privacy and security concerns of voters. They said while such demand suits their narrative in making it sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process, it is, in fact, aimed at achieving exactly the "opposite objective". Officials claimed that what is veiled as a very logical demand is actually "entirely contrary" to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court . by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cardiologists Recommend: Eat 1 Teaspoon Tonight – Wake Up With a Flatter Stomach Hollywood News | USA Click Here Undo Sharing the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements, they asserted. Creating an instance, they said if a particular political party gets the lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and, thereafter, may harass or intimidate them. Live Events To be sure, the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an election petition. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining the footage beyond this period makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, the officials underlined. They noted that in case an election petition is filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable for the EC and it has never compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court, the functionaries said. Fearing the use of its electronic data to create "malicious narratives", the Election Commission has instructed its state poll officers to destroy CCTV cameras, webcasting and video footage of the election process after 45 days, if the verdict is not challenged in courts within that period. The remarks come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5 pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections . In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. In a letter to state chief electoral officers on May 30, the EC said it has issued instructions for recording various stages of the election process through multiple recording devices -- photography, videography, CCTV and webcasting during the election process. While electoral laws do not mandate such recordings, the Commission uses them as an internal management tool during various stages of the electoral process. "However, the recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out-of-context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review," it said.

Business Standard

an hour ago

• Business Standard

PM Modi has mastered 'art of slogans', not solutions: Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi, the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, said Modi has "no new ideas" and has "surrendered" Press Trust of India New Delhi Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Saturday said Prime Minister Narendra Modi has mastered the "art of slogans" but offers no solutions, and claimed that India's manufacturing was at a record low despite the 'Make in India' initiative. "'Make in India' promised a factory boom. So why is manufacturing at record lows, youth unemployment at record highs, and why have imports from China more than doubled? "Modi ji has mastered the art of slogans, not solutions. Since 2014, manufacturing has fallen to 14 per cent of our economy," he said in a post on X. Gandhi, the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, said Modi has "no new ideas" and has "surrendered". "Even the much-hyped PLI scheme is now being quietly rolled back," he alleged. Gandhi said India needs a fundamental shift, one that empowers lakhs of producers through honest reforms and financial support. "We must stop being a market for others. If we don't build here, we'll keep buying from those who do. The clock is ticking," he said. Gandhi met mobile repair technicians at Nehru Place, Delhi and attached a video of the conversation to the post. "In Nehru Place, New Delhi, I met Shivam and Saif - bright, skilled, full of promise - yet denied the opportunity to fulfil it. Noting that there is a difference between 'Made in India' and 'Assembled in India', he said: "The truth is stark: we assemble, we import, but we don't build. China profits." "China is the world's electronic market. There is no other electronic market anywhere. Assembly as many iPhones as you want, all you are doing is giving money to the big oligopolies of India. Start making iPhones, it's a completely different ball game," he said in the video. The former Congress chief said to manufacture parts, whether it is a motherboard or "small pieces", you need a certain level of machining, a certain level of quality, a certain level of understanding of tolerances of working with small components. "That is a learnt skill. That is not something you can get in just two minutes. Until you start respecting the idea of physical labour, the man who is doing that we have no respect for that guy on the street who is sitting there, selling his things, for hours together... "And, at the centre of it, and people don't like it when I say it, and at the centre of it is the idea of caste. We need to make this transparent. We need to show exactly how Indian society distributes power, exactly how Indian society distributes respect," Gandhi observed. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress have raised the issue of conducting a nationwide caste census to ascertain if various castes in society have a proportionate "share" of power. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Business Standard

an hour ago

• Business Standard

Sharing video of polling station violation of voter privacy: EC officials

Amid demands to make public webcasting footage of polling stations, Election Commission officials on Saturday said such a move is violative of privacy and security concerns of voters. They said while such demand suits their narrative in making it sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process, it is, in fact, aimed at achieving exactly the "opposite objective". Officials claimed that what is veiled as a very logical demand is actually "entirely contrary" to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court. Sharing the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements, they asserted. Creating an instance, they said if a particular political party gets the lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and, thereafter, may harass or intimidate them. To be sure, the Election Commission retains the CCTV footage, which is purely an internal management tool and not a mandatory requirement, for a period of 45 days which aligns with the period laid down for filing an election petition. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of the declaration of the result, retaining the footage beyond this period makes it susceptible to misuse of the content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives, the officials underlined. They noted that in case an election petition is filed within 45 days, the CCTV footage is not destroyed and also made available to the competent court when asked for. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable for the EC and it has never compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court, the functionaries said. Fearing the use of its electronic data to create "malicious narratives", the Election Commission has instructed its state poll officers to destroy CCTV cameras, webcasting and video footage of the election process after 45 days, if the verdict is not challenged in courts within that period. The remarks come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5 pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. In a letter to state chief electoral officers on May 30, the EC said it has issued instructions for recording various stages of the election process through multiple recording devices -- photography, videography, CCTV and webcasting during the election process. While electoral laws do not mandate such recordings, the Commission uses them as an internal management tool during various stages of the electoral process. "However, the recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out-of-context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review," it said.