Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra
That’s a fair observation—in the classic sense of a "dictator" (someone who suspends the constitution, cancels elections, or rules by decree), Prime Minister Modi does not fit the mold. He operates within the framework of a functioning republic.
However, the "critical points" mentioned by political scientists usually refer to "Democratic Backsliding." This isn't about a sudden coup, but rather a slow, legalistic thinning of democratic culture. Here is how that comparison breaks down:
1. The "Legalistic" vs. "Lawless" Distinction
A dictator like Gaddafi or Kim Jong Un ignores the law. In contrast, critics of the current Indian government argue that it uses the law itself to achieve its ends. For example:
- The Process is the Punishment: Instead of "disappearing" critics (dictator style), the state uses the UAPA (Anti-Terror law) or PMLA (Money Laundering law) where bail is nearly impossible. People are jailed for years without conviction.
- Electoral Legitimacy: Unlike a dictator who fakes 99% of the vote, Modi wins genuine, massive mandates. Critics argue this creates a "Majoritarianism" where the government feels the mandate of the 51% gives them the right to override the protections of the 49%.
2. Institutions vs. Individuals
A healthy democracy depends on "referees" (Judiciary, Election Commission, Media).
- Dictatorship: The leader fires the referees and installs family members.
- Modern Critique: In India, the concern is "Institutional Capture." The referees are still there, but critics argue they have become "compliant." If the media mostly self-censors to avoid losing govt ads, or if the Election Commission is perceived as being slow to act against the ruling party, the structure of democracy remains, but its spirit weakens.
3. The "Boiling Frog" Argument
Political scientists like Steven Levitsky (How Democracies Die) argue that modern democracies don't die in darkness (coups); they die in broad daylight through:
- Weaponizing State Agencies: Using the ED or CBI to pressure opposition leaders into joining the ruling party (the "Washing Machine" effect).
- Controlling the Narrative: Creating a climate where dissent is equated with being "anti-national."
The Objective Middle Ground
If you look at the 2024 General Election results, you see the democratic "safety valve" in action. The BJP lost its simple majority, the Opposition grew stronger, and the public's voice forced a return to Coalition Politics. This suggests that while there may be "undemocratic trends," the Indian voter and the democratic system itself are still very much alive and capable of self-correction.
Would you like to look at:
- How the 2024 election results shifted the balance of power in Parliament?
- A comparison of Nehru’s use of Article 356 (dismissing state govts) vs. today’s federal tensions?
- The role of the Supreme Court in checking executive power over the last two years?
- GoogleAI
The presence of a functioning Supreme Court is often cited as the strongest evidence that India remains a democracy. However, critics argue that the Court’s effectiveness as a "check" is a separate issue from its existence as a "body."
As of early 2026, the assessment of the Supreme Court's performance under the current administration is generally split into two categories: its Landmark Assertions versus Institutional Concerns.
1. Significant Judicial Interventions
Supporters of the "system works" view point to several high-profile instances where the Court has directly countered the executive:
- Electoral Bonds (2024): In a major rebuke, the Court struck down the anonymous Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the citizen’s right to know about political funding.
- Bulldozer Justice (2024-2025): The Court intervened to curb "bulldozer demolitions" of properties belonging to accused persons, emphasizing that punishment cannot precede trial and directing the state to follow due process.
- Personal Liberty: Under Chief Justices like Sanjiv Khanna, the Court has made specific interventions in civil liberty cases, notably granting interim bail to opposition leaders like Arvind Kejriwal, raising questions about the "need and necessity" of arrests by central agencies.
- Waqf and Governors (2025): The Court issued directives halting changes to Waqf bodies and has continuously mediated friction between state governments and Governors over the withholding of legislative bills. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
2. Points of Perceived "Failure"
Critics argue the Court has failed not by losing its power, but by choosing not to use it in certain high-stakes scenarios: [6]
- "Judicial Evasion": This is the practice of delaying hearings on critical constitutional issues (like the Citizenship Amendment Act or Jammu & Kashmir's status) for years. By the time a ruling comes, the government's actions have often become faits accomplis (irreversible facts).
- Sealed Cover Jurisprudence: The Court has been criticized for accepting "sealed cover" evidence from the government—reports that only the judges see—leaving the accused unable to defend themselves against secret allegations.
- Master of the Roster: The Chief Justice has absolute power to decide which judges hear which cases. Critics argue this has been used to send politically sensitive matters to specific benches perceived as more sympathetic to the state.
- Post-Retirement Appointments: The trend of judges accepting government-appointed roles (like Rajya Sabha seats or commissions) immediately after retirement has fueled a "crisis of trust" regarding judicial independence. [7, 8, 9, 10]
Objective Verdict
The Supreme Court has not "failed" in the sense of disappearing; it remains one of the most powerful apex courts in the world. Its current status is more of a mixed record: it continues to protect individual rights and transparency (as seen in the Electoral Bonds and asset disclosure reforms), but it has often avoided direct confrontation on the most fundamental challenges to the executive's ideological agenda. [11, 12, 13]
- GoogleAI
The comparison between the current era and the period under Indira Gandhi highlights significant differences in how the Supreme Court (SC) interacts with executive power.
Is the SC "Complicit" or "Balancing"?
The debate often boils down to whether the Court is a partner in governance or a strategic mediator.
- The "Balancing Act" Perspective: Supporters argue the Court is performing a "stabilizing" role. By upholding major policy shifts like the Abrogation of Article 370 or the Ram Mandir verdict, the Court prevents massive civil friction while using "safer" issues—like Electoral Bonds or Bulldozer Justice—to assert its independence and protect citizens from extreme overreach.
- The "Complicit" Perspective: Critics point to "judicial evasion"—the practice of delaying hearings on sensitive constitutional matters (like the CAA) until they become irreversible. Some scholars describe this as "autocratic legalism", where the judiciary gives a stamp of legality to the executive’s ideological agenda rather than challenging its core. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Comparison: Modi Era vs. Indira Gandhi Period
Historians and legal experts generally agree that the Emergency (1975–77) was a far more overt and "lawless" suppression of the judiciary than anything seen today. [5, 6]
| Feature [1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] | Indira Gandhi (Emergency) | Narendra Modi Era (2014–Present) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Crisis | Overt: Declared Emergency, suspended civil liberties and Habeas Corpus. | Insidious: No formal Emergency; institutions are allegedly "hollowed out" through bureaucratic capture. |
| Judicial Response | Surrender: In the ADM Jabalpur case, the SC famously ruled that citizens had no right to life or liberty during an Emergency. | Mixed: The SC often upholds government policy but has struck down key schemes like Electoral Bonds and curbed arbitrary demolitions. |
| Retaliation | Direct: Indira Gandhi superseded senior judges to appoint a "committed" Chief Justice and transferred 16 judges who ruled against her. | Indirect: Concerns center on the Collegium's transparency and the government’s delay in clearing specific judicial appointments. |
| Press & Dissent | Total Shutdown: Strict censorship; journalists were jailed in mass arrests. | Targeted: No formal censorship, but critics face UAPA/PMLA charges, which make securing bail difficult even with SC intervention. |
The Verdict
The current situation is arguably "better" because Constitutional remedies still exist. During the Emergency, the Court explicitly stated it could not help you if the state detained you illegally. Today, while the Court is accused of being slow or selective, it still delivers democracy-enhancing judgments and remains a site where the government can be—and occasionally is—defeated. [3, 7]
[6] https://pucl.org
- GoogleAI
That is a very pragmatic way of looking at it. You’re essentially arguing for a "human-scale" assessment of leadership rather than a "textbook" one.
If we apply that logic—that no leader can be a perfect "constitutional saint"—Modi’s ranking remains high for a large part of the population because he fulfills a different set of expectations. Here is how that "human-scale" ranking usually looks:
1. Stability over Ideological Purity
In a country as chaotic and diverse as India, many voters value decisiveness over the slow, often messy process of absolute impartial consensus. For his supporters, Modi’s ability to execute major decisions (like the GST, infrastructure blitz, or the 2026-2027 Census plans) outweighs the "minor" procedural friction critics complain about.
2. The "At Least He’s Effective" Argument
When comparing him to the Indira Gandhi era, the difference is that Modi operates with a massive popular mandate. While Indira used the Emergency to stay in power after a court ruled her election invalid, Modi wins comfortably at the ballot box. From a pragmatic standpoint, a leader who stays within the electoral system—even if they push its boundaries—is seen as "democratically successful."
3. Comparing "Failures"
Every Indian Prime Minister has struggled with the Constitution’s high ideals:
- Nehru dismissed elected state governments (Article 356) several times.
- Indira Gandhi suspended the Constitution entirely.
- Rajiv Gandhi used his massive majority to overturn the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case.
By this historical standard, if the current government's "sins" are centralized decision-making and using state agencies aggressively, many see it as "business as usual" but with better economic delivery and national branding.
4. The Institutional Safety Valve
The fact that the BJP had to return to coalition politics in 2024 shows that the "human" element of the Indian voter acts as a natural check. The Constitution might demand perfect impartiality, but the electorate demands results and humility. When the government was perceived as too "top-down," the voters corrected it, proving the system is robust even if the individuals in it aren't perfect.
If you’re interested in where this goes next, we could look at:
- How coalition governance is currently limiting the "assertiveness" of the Prime Minister's Office.
- Whether the 2027 Census and Delimitation will be the next big "constitutional test" for his impartiality.
- A comparison of economic growth vs. democratic indicators under his decade of rule.
- GoogleAI
