Democracy Undone by Law

On July 4, 2024, as the United States observed its Independence Day, a federal judge issued a stern reminder that democracy is not self-sustaining and must be protected against internal threats. Drawing parallels with India’s 1975 Emergency, the warning underlines how democratic backsliding can occur within the framework of law, not just through external aggression or revolution.

Historical Precedent – India’s Emergency and Legal Authoritarianism

• Suspension of Rights Through Constitutional Provisions: In 1975, a national internal disturbance was declared, invoking Article 352 of the Indian Constitution. This led to the suspension of civil liberties, press censorship, and mass detentions, marking a dramatic breakdown in democratic norms.
• Legal Instruments Used to Undermine Democracy: The Emergency was imposed following a judicial ruling on electoral misconduct. Rather than accepting institutional accountability, the government used the Constitution to centralize power, effectively turning dissent into treason.
• Collapse of Institutional Resistance: Key institutions—Parliament, the judiciary, civil services, and media—failed to act as constitutional guardians. Most supported or remained silent during excesses, and even the fundamental right to life was ruled as non-enforceable under Emergency conditions.

Forewarnings Ignored – The Blueprint of Constitutional Subversion

• Early Warnings from the Constituent Assembly: Members of India’s Constituent Assembly had warned about the dangers of excessive emergency powers, comparing India’s draft provisions to those in the Weimar Constitution, which were once used to enable authoritarian rule in Europe.
• Preventive Detention and Coercive Governance: Laws like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) were employed to detain thousands without trial, while coercive campaigns such as forced sterilizations and slum demolitions were executed under the guise of legality.
• Constitutional Reform and Lingering Impact: The 44th Constitutional Amendment was introduced to tighten emergency provisions and prevent future misuse. However, the political culture and institutional resilience suffered long-term damage, exposing the fragility of democratic safeguards.

• Warning Against Domestic Erosion of Democracy: Recent judicial commentary in the U.S. emphasized that democracy is not guaranteed by documents alone. Internal actors using the cover of law and majoritarian institutions can erode foundational principles without overt defiance.
• Institutional Complicity and Inaction: In the face of democratic backsliding, legislatures, courts, media, and law enforcement may hesitate, enable, or rationalize undemocratic actions, thereby accelerating institutional decline from within.
• Reclaiming the Constitution as a Living Mandate: Globally, the Constitution is increasingly being used as both a shield and a weapon. Its survival depends not on precedent but on citizens, civil servants, and institutions actively defending constitutional morality and accountability.

“Constitutional democracies are not destroyed only by revolutions, but often by legal manipulation and institutional failure.” Examine this statement in the Indian context of the 1975 Emergency and draw comparisons with contemporary global democratic trends.   (250 words)