Dr.Thomas (Special Correspondent)
In a nation celebrated as the world’s largest democracy, recent developments have sparked intense debate about the health of its institutions.
On August 20, 2025, India’s Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three controversial bills in the Lok Sabha aimed at mandating the resignation or removal of elected representatives, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers, if they are detained in custody for 30 consecutive days without securing bail on serious charges.
The bills specify that such removal would be automatic if resignation is not tendered, though the individuals could return to office if later acquitted or released.
Proponents argue this ensures governance isn’t hampered by jailed leaders, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating, “Why should governments be run from jail?”
However, the opposition has vehemently opposed these amendments, labeling them as a tool for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to target political rivals.
Chaos erupted in Parliament during the introduction, with opposition MPs accusing the government of weaponizing central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A petition highlighted that since 2014, 95% of cases pursued by the CBI and ED have been against opposition politicians—a statistic that has fueled suspicions of selective enforcement.
Critics point to a pattern where opposition leaders face multiple cases, only for allegations to seemingly evaporate if they align with the BJP.
Selective Targeting: A Pattern of Political Coercion?.
One prominent example cited by detractors is Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar. In July 2023, Pawar led a split in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and joined the BJP-led alliance, becoming part of the state government.
Prior to this, he faced investigations in corruption cases, including those related to irrigation scams.
Opposition voices claim that his alignment with the BJP resulted in a softening of scrutiny, though official records do not explicitly confirm dropped charges.
Similar allegations have been leveled in other cases, such as those involving former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, where ED raids intensified amid political tensions.
Data from opposition leaders like Trinamool Congress’s Saket Gokhale reinforces this narrative:
As of May 2025, 98% of ED cases involving politicians targeted opposition figures, with conviction rates remaining low.
The ED, empowered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), can arrest individuals and seek initial custody for up to 15 days, extendable through judicial remand. Bail under PMLA is notoriously stringent, often leading to prolonged detention without trial—a practice the Supreme Court has criticized, noting it infringes on personal liberty.
In May 2025, the apex court clarified that no mandatory one-year jail term is required before granting bail in such cases, emphasizing that detention cannot substitute for punishment.
This raises a critical question: Who bears responsibility when accused individuals are acquitted after months or years in custody? Numerous cases end in acquittals, yet the human cost—lost livelihoods, stigma, and health deterioration—goes unaddressed.
Human Rights Violations: From Jails to Religious Persecution
The concerns extend beyond politics to basic human rights. The tragic case of Father Stan Swamy, an 83-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist arrested in 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Bhima Koregaon case, exemplifies systemic failures.
Suffering from Parkinson’s disease, Swamy requested a simple sipper and straw to drink fluids, as he could not hold a glass steadily.
Prison authorities and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) denied this for over 20 days, citing unavailability. Swamy died in custody in July 2021, highlighting violations of prisoners’ rights, including access to medical aids.
More recently, in July 2025, two Catholic nuns from Kerala were arrested in Chhattisgarh on charges of human trafficking and forced religious conversion while accompanying minors on a train.
The arrests, under the state’s anti-conversion law, sparked protests and exposed rifts within the BJP, with its Kerala unit criticizing the action.
The nuns were granted bail in August 2025 after the prosecution conceded, but the incident underscores the misuse of anti-conversion laws in states like Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, where such statutes were tightened in August 2025 to impose harsher penalties.
Critics argue these laws often target minorities without evidence, serving hidden political agendas.
Everyday citizens face similar burdens. In cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, appellants must typically deposit 20% of the compensation amount to suspend sentences during appeals—a rule upheld by courts like the Punjab and Haryana High Court in January 2025, though it can be relaxed in exceptional circumstances.
This provision, intended to deter frivolous appeals, has been criticized for disproportionately affecting the poor and innocent, forcing upfront payments even in contested cases.
Cultural freedoms are also under scrutiny. While not directly tied to the new bills, ongoing debates over food choices—such as bans on beef in several states—reflect broader restrictions influenced by religious and political motives, limiting personal liberties.
Press Freedom and the Fifth Pillar Under Siege:
Media, often called democracy’s fourth estate (or fifth pillar, as per some Indian discourse), is facing erosion. India ranked 151 out of 180 countries in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), an improvement from 159 in 2024 but still alarmingly low with a score of 32.96.
The report cites economic fragility, media monopolies, and threats to journalists as key issues.
A stark example unfolded ini August 2025 when Assam Police filed an FIR against journalists Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar, along with others, for allegedly endangering India’s sovereignty through their reporting.
The Supreme Court intervened on August 22, 2025, restraining coercive actions and issuing a stay, underscoring judicial oversight amid claims of harassment. Notably, ruling party leaders face few such probes despite allegations, perpetuating perceptions of bias.
Economic Exodus: Millionaires Fleeing Amid Uncertainty
These issues are driving an exodus.
The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2025 estimates 3,500 Indian millionaires will relocate abroad this year, down from 4,300 in 2024 but still significant.
1,710,890 Indians renounced Indian citizenship between 2014 and 2024 (full year).
(Official replies in Parliament by the Ministry of External Affairs are the source for all figures above.)
Many from Gujarat and other states cite regulatory pressures, political instability, and better opportunities elsewhere, with the UAE emerging as a top destination.
A CNBC survey revealed one in five ultra-high-net-worth Indians plans to emigrate while retaining ties, highlighting a “brain drain” that could hinder growth.
Is This the Dawn of Dictatorship?:
While terms like “dictatorship” may seem hyperbolic, the confluence of targeted probes, stringent laws, and human rights lapses raises valid alarms about democratic backsliding.
Opposition leaders argue the new bills could destabilize governments by exploiting agency biases, potentially leading to authoritarian tendencies.
Yet, supporters maintain these measures promote accountability.
To foster development where foreigners invest and Indians stay, experts call for simplifying rules, ensuring impartial enforcement, and protecting rights.
As India aims for global leadership, balancing security with liberty will be key. The bills have been referred to a Joint Committee for scrutiny, but the debate underscores a nation at a crossroad
