You and everyone else marching India towards authoritarianism. Following the tracks of every failed democracy that didn't fall to an invasion or military coup fails: not understanding the difference between majoritarianism and democracy. (I was actually surprised to see the Supreme Court pushing back on the government--I didn't realize India had such checks and balances left.)
The new assertive Indian supreme court is after the new CJI took office. The previous CJI was very pro government - for certain reasons.
Democracy literally is: rule of the people. If the majority in a country votes one way and this way is not acceptable to the minority, there are a few ways to frustrate the will of the people:
- give minorities veto power over decisions affecting the lives of the majority
- install a permanent plutocracy within various arms of the government that is not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form
This happens in India all the time. Know, however, that all these options are undemocratic to the core. And eventually ends badly for everyone involved.
India is surrounded by communist China, Islamist Pakistan, Afganistan, Bangladesh (where only a couple of days ago 300 Hindus were murdered by Islamist for no reason), Military dictatorship in Myanmar.
I do not know what benchmark you use for authoritarianism.
But of course, your next reply will be how flawed these indexes are and how the entire world has some vendetta against India.
[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...
[2] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-again-placed-at...
I am certain after all the fake votes and drama that ultimately ended with storming of the capitol, I would perhaps place Indian democracy above that of the US.
No it doesn't. Freedom of press and speech are a key component of democracy.
The court did say this
> "This is of particular concern when it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy. Such chilling effect on the freedom of speech is an assault on the vital public-watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information," the judgment said.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pegasus-national...
Even
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/in...
The judiciary acts like the mafia.
Then, in 1993, it ruled that only sitting judges would be able to appoint new members of the judiciary. It was a coup of sorts. India’s founding
Over the years, the scale of the problem has become staggering. In 2010, Bhushan’s father, Shanti—who, as the law minister in the government that dethroned Indira Gandhi in 1977, had been a key force in repealing many of her draconian decrees—submitted to the Supreme Court, in a sealed document, the names of eight chief justices who he claimed were “definitely corrupt.” His efforts went no further, though he now faces a contempt case of his own.The comment I was replying to was discussing the govt appointing its own committee to investigate itself. My point was the supreme court is even more opaque and corrupt.
It is not democratically controlled, so the SC investigating here is not necessarily better.
I don't know if this is what the judges said or if it is the Guardian's spin on what they said. Either way, the Indian constitution has no separate guarantee for "freedom of the press."[1] Theoretically, the press has as much (or as little) freedom as the common man. Practically, the ability to openly blackmail all and sundry means they can say what they want without repercussions.
Further, Article 19(2) severely restricts any such right to "freedom of expression" for a variety of reasons, including national security:
> Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
In a twist of irony, Jawaharlal Nehru, former prime minister and the great-grandfather of the Rahul Gandhi mentioned in the Guardian article is responsible for this curtailment of rights. He could not run his socialist regime in peace if there was absolute freedom of speech and expression.
I am sure there is some law somewhere which allows the Indian government to spy on its citizens. After all, there are hundreds of British-era laws still on the books. The only question is whether such spying is "reasonable."
There, I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to elected representatives. I am not in favor of handing over veto power over executive decisions to judges who are not only unelected, but probably unique in any democratic country to have reserved the power to select their own replacements. Imagine the US Senate twiddling its thumbs while US Supreme Court judges selected not only their own successors, but also every single judge in the federal judiciary.
[1] Article 19(1) (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/)