In February 2022, educational institutions in the town of Udupi (in Karnataka, India) decided to ban the wearing of Hijabs by Muslim students in a college. This ban is unconstitutional. It is not in line with the principle of secularism and also violates the right to education.
Die komplexe Verflechtung von Sicherheit und Meinungsfreiheit in Indien stellt eine ernsthafte Herausforderung für die demokratischen Ideale der Meinungsfreiheit dar. Heute erleben wir, dass Journalisten und Aktivisten im ganzen Land verstärkt ins Visier genommen werden. Insbesondere in konfliktreichen Regionen hat sich die Situation verschärft, da Journalisten beschuldigt werden, mit Staatsfeinden zu konspirieren. Die zunehmende Praxis, der Presse und den Foren der öffentlichen Debatte einen Maulkorb zu verpassen, hat in der Zivilgesellschaft eine Kultur der Angst geschaffen, die sich unmittelbar auf die Qualität der Demokratie und die Meinungsfreiheit auswirkt.
India's complex interlocking of securitization and freedom of expression poses a serious challenge to democratic ideals of free speech. Today, we witness increased targeting of journalists and activists across the country. In particular, conflict-ridden regions have presented a more serious situation where journalists face accusations of conspiring with the enemies of the state. The growing practice of muzzling the press and forums of public debate has created a culture of fear among the civil society, which directly affects the quality of democracy and free speech.
A set of petitions challenging India’s non-recognition of gay and transgender persons’ right to marry was listed for final hearing by the Delhi High Court on 30 November 2021, with notice subsequently having been issued to the Union Government. I argue that the Indian constitutional framework is sufficiently well-developed to recognise LGBT marriage and that in holding as much, judicial fora in India would be heavily influenced by the idea of “constitutional morality”.
Indien hat komplexe rechtliche Mechanismen geschaffen, die den Status der Staatsbürgerschaft stark verunsichert haben. Diese Mechanismen erlauben es, Personen willkürlich als mutmaßliche Ausländer ins Visier zu nehmen, stellen unzumutbare Beweisanforderungen für den Nachweis der Staatsbürgerschaft und erleichtern den schleichenden Verlust materieller Rechte - und das alles ohne formellen Entzug des Staatsbürgerschaftsstatuses. Diese Prozesse lassen sich meiner Meinung nach am besten als das verstehen, was Peter Nyers als "Irregularisierung der Staatsbürgerschaft" bezeichnet.
India has created complex legal mechanisms that have introduced severe insecurity of citizenship status. These mechanisms permit arbitrary targeting of persons as suspected foreigners, place unreasonable evidentiary standards for proving citizenship, and facilitate creeping loss of substantive rights – all without a formal revocation of citizenship status. These processes, I suggest, are best understood as what Peter Nyers calls ‘irregularizing citizenship’.
We cannot trust the Indian state to forego the easy option for the right option. And that’s why we need transparency and accountability on internet shutdowns. The Supreme Court recognised this when it ordered that all internet suspension orders must be made available widely, to enable affected citizens to challenge these orders in Court. In practice, the Supreme Court's orders have been ignored.
In the recent global history of constitutional democracies, it is difficult to name a single crisis that has plagued them simultaneously, until the COVID-19 pandemic. The calamity brought in by the virus was universal. For governments, it presented an opportunity for crisis management without compromising rights guarantees. Some countries have marginally succeeded in this test while in others, concerns of democratic decline were amplified. Three features defined the Indian response to COVID-19: lack of transparency, executive monopoly and suppression of dissent.
For months, Indian farmers have been protesting against the so-called “farm bills”. With the government unwilling to give in to demands and with farmers determined to keep on protesting until the laws are repealed, India’s Supreme Court has ventured into the political fray. On 12th January it passed an order staying the laws as well as setting up a mediation committee. The Supreme Court’s response fits neatly into a destructive pattern, particularly in the past years under the Modi government, in which it has abnegated its core functions in favor of politically expedient (in-)actions.
Unlike the post-world-war era, democracies are no longer subverted via coups. Would-be autocrats pursue anti-democratic agendas through laws to imbue them with a veneer of legitimacy. This renaissance in authoritarianism has thrown into focus the institution of the legislature, which becomes the primary site for what Javier Corrales terms ‘Autocratic Legalism’. India is no stranger to the trend of Autocratic Legalism, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) has often taken the aid of the presiding officers in both Houses of the Parliament, to push forward its anti-democratic agendas. Considering how central a role presiding officers have played in eroding democracy inIndia, a radical shakeup to the way presiding officers are appointed and function is needed to ensure Indian democracy’s long-term sustainability.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters