A Choice Before India: Rule of Law or Rule of Chaos

India is at a critical juncture in its constitution. The character of democratic conflict has changed due to the growing spread of political contestation beyond institutional forums like Parliament into the streets, law enforcement, and administrative resistance. Once written off as ordinary political theatre, it has developed into a more serious institutional crisis that calls into doubt the sustainability of the rule of law itself. The argument is now about the structure of constitutional governance rather than ideology. The question at hand is whether India will continue to be governed by the law or fall into a system of political anarchy, executive disobedience, and selective obedience.

Parliamentary Disruption and the Erosion of Institutional Norms

For the majority of the previous ten years, opposition parties’ frequent interruptions of Parliament were often regarded as strategic moves rather than grave dangers to democracy. The deteriorating election prospects of opposition parties after 2014 and their struggles to challenge the political dominance of the ruling party were blamed by observers for these disturbances. Rather than being a sign of principled dissent, parliamentary paralysis was perceived as manufactured outrage.

Even as the BJP promoted claims that foreign funding, namely from organisations connected to billionaire George Soros and the Open Society Foundations, had an impact on the Congress-led INDIA bloc, this view remained. The 2024 Lok Sabha elections and India’s political narratives were allegedly influenced by foreign-linked funding, according to BJP officials.The opposition vehemently refuted these allegations, which have not been established in any court of law. However, they exacerbated institutional mistrust and political division.

Opposition leaders’ warnings that India might experience instability similar to that of Bangladesh, Nepal, or Sri Lanka were largely dismissed as rhetoric. But this complacency has been shattered by recent events.

Executive Defiance and a Constitutional Rupture

A turning point in India’s constitutional history was reached by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s actions during Enforcement Directorate operations in late 2025. An extraordinary act of executive resistance was committed by her physical intervention, which included entering search premises, confronting ED personnel, instructing state police, and confiscating seized papers.

This was neither a political protest nor a symbolic demonstration. It was a clear interference with an investigation that was authorised by law and conducted in accordance with court orders. A central investigating agency has never previously had a sitting chief minister physically obstruct an ongoing operation. Such behaviour constitutes a serious violation of the constitution.

The risks are numerous. First, it puts India’s federal system at jeopardy. Respect for constitutional roles, not selective compliance, is a prerequisite for cooperative federalism. Federalism devolves into competitive obstructionism when states independently impede Union agencies. Second, it normalises the idea that political authority can supersede the legal system, which is essentially at odds with constitutional rule.

The Legal Context: ED Investigations and Constitutional Authority

The aforementioned ED raids were neither extrajudicial nor arbitrary. They were connected to an ongoing inquiry into possible money laundering related to the coal scam in West Bengal. Allegations of illicit coal extraction, unauthorised transportation, black-market sales, accounting avoidance, and significant losses to the state exchequer are at the heart of the case, which began with a report from Eastern Coalfields Limited’s vigilance wing in November 2020.

The purported characteristics of the scam have already been described by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The ED is tasked with tracking down, seizing, and prosecuting proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). According to reports, recent searches of the political consultancy I-PAC and the home of its director, Pratik Jain, were conducted to determine whether money obtained through criminal activity was used for political purposes, including spending on elections. The ED has continuously insisted that its decisions were motivated by facts rather than politics.

In light of this, the Chief Minister’s intervention is unconstitutional. States are required by Article 256 of the Constitution to make sure that Union laws are followed. The purpose of investigative agencies’ independence from political office is to avoid executive intervention. Obstructing these organisations could be equivalent to obstructing justice and contempt of court.

Rule of Law: Concept, Evolution, and Constitutional Foundations

A fundamental tenet of constitutional democracy is the rule of law. It is based on the writings of A.V. Dicey and highlights the absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and the supremacy of the law. The Indian Constitution, especially Articles 14, 19, and 21, incorporates the rule of law, which is further strengthened by judicial review.

No one is above the law, regardless of position, according to Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the rule of law in preserving constitutional balance in decisions like State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010). The legitimacy of governance arises not from political power but from conformity to legal and constitutional principles.

This fundamental idea is compromised by executive disregard for lawful investigations. The logic of law enforcement breaks down if a chief minister may hinder agencies without consequence. So why should common people follow the law if constitutional authorities do not?

Constitutional Morality and Executive Accountability

The idea of constitutional morality, which B.R. Ambedkar expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates, is closely related to the rule of law. Constitutional morality requires adherence to the Constitution’s spirit, values, and institutional ethos in addition to its text. Even when there are legally acceptable options, people in positions of authority must display restraint, respect institutional boundaries, and preserve democratic principles.

Constitutional morality has been confirmed as a governing principle by recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018). By putting political expediency ahead of constitutional procedures, executive meddling in investigations undermines this principle.

Judicial Role and the Need for Swift Intervention

The judiciary plays a crucial part in upholding the rule of law. Indian courts have consistently ruled that holding a political position does not grant one protection from prosecution. Courts must take decisive action to uphold constitutional discipline when executive noncompliance remains unchecked.

A concerning decline in institutional respect can be seen in recent instances of official defiance, such as opposition to court rulings in Tamil Nadu, threats of judicial impeachment, and careless constitutional interpretations in Andhra Pradesh. Such developments run the risk of normalising lawlessness and deterring social stability, investment, and governance if they are not addressed.

International Perspectives: Rule of Law as Democratic Bedrock

The importance of the rule of law is highlighted by comparative constitutional experience. Executive meddling in investigations is viewed as a grave constitutional infraction in developed democracies like the UK, Germany, and Canada, frequently leading to resignations or legal repercussions. On the other hand, persistent erosion of judicial independence and presidential takeover of enforcement agencies have been hallmarks of democratic backsliding in nations like Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela.

India must avoid similar paths if it hopes to maintain its position as a constitutional democracy in the world. Justified by political grievances, selective adherence to the law resembles trends observed in democracies that descended into authoritarianism.

Conclusion

India must make a difficult decision. Selective adherence to the law or constitutional rhetoric separated from constitutional behaviour cannot sustain democracy. No matter how strong, political opposition to the ruling party does not justify executive disobedience or obstruction of justice. Constitutional administration devolves into anarchy if Chief Ministers have the power to subvert legal procedures.

The message must be clear: everyone is subject to the law. In order to combat presidential resistance, courts must act quickly. Beyond rhetoric, the Union administration must uphold constitutional discipline. Additionally, citizens need to understand that anarchy is still anarchy even when it is presented as resistance.

India does not have to choose between political parties or ideology. The rule of chaos and the rule of law are at odds. Making informed decisions is essential to the future of Indian democracy.

Sharing is caring!