THE British Raj functioned as an authoritarian regime, primarily oriented towards resource extraction and maintaining law and order. After independence, India inherited much of this colonial bureaucratic and policing apparatus, continuing to prioritise state security over civil liberties. Legal instruments originally crafted to suppress dissent such as sedition laws, preventive detention and sweeping emergency powers were seamlessly absorbed into the framework of the independent Indian state, persisting as regressive tools of governance.

The authoritarian strain within India’s democratic system became most visible during the Emergency (1975-77), when civil liberties were suspended, press freedom was curtailed and the rule of law was subordinated to executive authority. Political commentators widely regard this episode as a temporary but grave deviation from constitutional democracy often remembered as a “black period” in India’s history.

Since 2014, India’s political trajectory has been viewed by many scholars and analysts as qualitatively distinct from earlier episodes of democratic suspension. Rather than a temporary deviation, this period is often described as one of sustained erosion of democratic norms. The country is increasingly characterized as an electoral autocracy, a system where institutions of democracy formally persist but are progressively weakened through practices such as centralisation of authority, suppression of dissent and the dominance of majoritarian politics.  Numerous political thinkers argue that these trends have intensified in the post-2014 era, raising serious concerns about the gradual undermining of India’s secular and democratic foundations.

ELECTORAL AUTOCRACY

The authority of the rule of law in India is increasingly concentrated within the executive, as the central government advances a deliberate policy of centralisation. This trajectory reflects a decisive shift towards authoritarian governance. Opposition parties, civil society, and the media are either forced to accommodate the totalitarian practices of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or subjected to punitive measures, often enforced through agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Income Tax Department, police and paramilitary forces. Its ascent has been facilitated by a religion-based democracy, wherein orthodox principles are applied microscopically among citizens to foster communal polarisation. The politics of the RSS-BJP has entrenched divisions across society, enabling them to secure political supremacy. Electoral victories are further ensured by keeping the election machinery firmly under their influence.

Religious fanaticism has become a sharp instrument in sustaining authoritarian rule. The Manuvadi ideology, central to the RSS, serves as the guiding perspective for reshaping the nation’s socio-political fabric. Communal polarisation is no longer confined to a single religion but has spread across multiple communities, posing a grave threat to India’s secular ethos. Simultaneously, the erosion of moral education once a cornerstone of civic life marks a troubling decline. Its deterioration from established norms has been driven by the interests of a select few, undermining the broader ethical foundation of the country.

CENTRALISATION OF POWER

The governance model pursued by the NDA government led by Narendra Modi reflects a significant concentration of authority within the Prime Minister’s Office and a reconfiguration of Centre–State relations. This centralisation has profoundly affected India’s federal democratic structure, reshaping political, economic and administrative landscapes through several mechanisms. This concentration of authority significantly reduced ministerial discretion, effectively subordinating individual ministries to the directives of the Prime Minister’s Office.

CONCENTRATION OF EXECUTIVE POWER

The Executive authority has become increasingly centralised, with both state and federal powers consolidated under the ruling administration. Parliamentary procedures and Cabinet deliberations are frequently bypassed or weakened, resulting in diminished institutional checks and balances. This concentration of power reflects a broader shift towards executive dominance, where decision-making is heavily controlled by the central leadership rather than distributed across democratic structures.

Independent institutions that traditionally function as democratic watchdogs have experienced a marked erosion of autonomy. International monitors such as the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute based in Sweden and Freedom House based in Washington DC underscore this decline, pointing specifically to the Election Commission, the judiciary and investigative agencies. Once designed to safeguard accountability, these bodies are increasingly perceived as instruments for constraining opposition and consolidating executive control. Both V-Dem and Freedom House evaluate India as undergoing significant democratic backsliding.

SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT

Civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations and independent journalists face mounting pressure under the current governance framework. Sweeping legal instruments most notably the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), anti-terror legislation, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) are frequently deployed to suppress dissenting voices and restrict external funding. These measures have created an environment of heightened surveillance and vulnerability where critical actors in civil society and the media are constrained in their ability to operate freely.

MARGINALISATION OF MINORITIES

A pronounced rise in majoritarian politics has systematically reduced the socio-political space available to minority communities. Legislative and policy measures particularly those relating to citizenship and everyday legality reflect a deliberate push towards constructing a majoritarian conception of nationhood. These developments have heightened concerns about the erosion of pluralism and inclusivity, which are foundational principles of India’s constitutional democracy.

JUDICIAL AND LEGAL TOOLS

In an authoritarian democracy, leadership seeks to dominate the four pillars of governance -- the Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and the Media. By exerting control over these institutions, their objectives are swiftly realised. This dynamic is evident in India, where the Modi government employs authoritarian methods openly observed by the global community. The judiciary, however, is sometimes perceived as passive likened to Dhritarashtra of the Mahabharata, blind to unfolding realities. The judiciary’s constitutional mandate to safeguard democracy and fundamental rights derives chiefly from Article 32 and Article 226. Article 32, described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul of the Constitution.” Recent remarks by the Chief Justice of India have highlighted how certain actors exploit judicial processes for undue advantage.

BULLDOZER JUSTICE

The notion of “bulldozer justice” has gained prominence in recent times, though it has no legitimate place within the framework of the rule of law. A bulldozer is merely a mechanical device, meant to be deployed as a technical necessity. For example, when a court orders an eviction drive, experts may determine its use as a tool of execution. However, the ruling BJP has advanced a new doctrine, popularly termed “Bulldozer Raj,” which bears no connection to the established system of justice delivery. In West Bengal, barely a month after the assembly elections in which the BJP secured a majority, hawkers have been evicted so that favoured corporate houses may expand their businesses, profiting at the expense of ordinary citizens while disregarding the pain, tears and crises of those displaced. This pattern demonstrates that whenever the BJP comes to power, evictions are initiated to serve the interests of corporate sectors. Thus, Bulldozer Raj operates not as a lawful mechanism of justice but as an instrument of exploitation, advancing entrenched capitalist interests at the cost of common people’s rights and livelihoods.

Former Justice B R Gavai categorically declared that the practice of “bulldozer action” or “bulldozer justice” is impermissible under the rule of law. In a landmark judgment (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind Vs State of Uttar Pradesh), the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan on November 13, 2024 laid down pan-India guidelines against arbitrary, punitive demolitions of properties. Justice Gavai famously declared that the Indian legal system is "governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of the bulldozer". This pronouncement formed part of broader proceedings on the issue, which also included a bench led by former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud. That bench similarly held that dispensing justice through bulldozers is wholly unacceptable.

Justice Gavai further underscored that the executive cannot assume the role of “judge, jury, and executioner.” He emphasised that demolitions carried out without adherence to constitutional safeguards and due process are unconstitutional, thereby reinforcing the principle that justice must be delivered through lawful procedures rather than arbitrary executive action.

The critical issue of rehabilitating evicted hawkers and other vulnerable citizens affected by poverty and unemployment cannot be overlooked. India is already burdened with widespread poverty and escalating unemployment, and the displacement of these individuals without proper rehabilitation only worsens the crisis. The Constitution of India guarantees essential protections to every citizen. Consequently, the provision of food, shelter, clothing, and education is a constitutional obligation that no elected government may deny. Ensuring rehabilitation for those displaced is therefore not merely a matter of policy but a constitutional imperative tied to the dignity and survival of the people. In light of the prevailing circumstances and the facts at hand, it is imperative that the elected government of the country must establish a clear and effective policy framework to control the skyrocketing rise in commodity prices and simultaneously eradicate poverty and unemployment without delay. At the same time, citizens including students, youth, the working class, small and medium-scale entrepreneurs, farmers, and all democratic-minded individuals across the nation must unite to foster a collective democratic movement that transcends divisions of religion, caste, creed, community, and class. Only through such unity can the nation meaningfully confront these challenges while safeguarding the foundational values of democracy, secularism, justice and socialism enshrined in the Constitution of India.