On 14 November, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling declaring the practice widely known as “bulldozer justice” illegal – a practice in which state governments demolish homes and businesses after communal conflicts or acts of political dissent. The Court issued guidelines and mandated that authorities provide a reason and give at least 15 days’ notice to occupants before demolishing unauthorized structures. Legal and rights experts have welcomed the decision, hoping it will stop arbitrary demolitions, which have reportedly targeted minority communities protesting discriminatory laws. The government responded favourably to the ruling, while members of the Bharatiya Janata Party clarified that bulldozers were only being used on unauthorized structures and encroachment – adding that the Court has imposed no ban on this. 

Sources: International IDEA, The New York Times, Times of India, Bharat National, Supreme Court of India 

Jammu and Kashmir held its first local election in a decade from 18 September to 1 October, following the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. This abrogation removed Jammu & Kashmir’s autonomous status and split the region into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The National Conference (NC) party and its alliance partners secured 48 out of 90 assembly seats (53.3 per cent), while the nationally-ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 29 seats (32.2 per cent). Voter turnout was 63.9 per cent, slightly lower than 65.5 per cent in the last election in 2014. Despite 41 women contesting the polls, only three women secured seats in the 90-member assembly, compared to two in the previous election. The Election Commission and observers noted that the polls were held peacefully, in contrast with the 2014 election.  

Sources: International IDEA, Hindustan Times, Deutsche Welle, Election Commission of India, South Asian Voices, The Hindu 

On 11 March, the Indian government announced it would soon begin implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, which aims to fast-track citizenship for persecuted religious immigrants, but excludes Muslims. Rights advocates and opposition leaders have criticized the law for religious discrimination, with a spokesperson from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing concern that the law signals a “breach of India’s international human rights obligations.” Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated the opposition is spreading misinformation and politicizing the matter. Shah states that “CAA does not violate Article 14 (right to equality). It’s a law for those who have faced religious persecution in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” The law’s implementation comes weeks before a nationwide election and follows another controversial 22 March ruling by a court in one of India’s most populous states (Uttar Pradesh), declaring the Madrasa Act of 2004 unconstitutional and ordering the state government to move students enrolled in the Islamic system to mainstream schools. The Act provides a legal framework for the operation of madrasas [Islam-centred schools] in the state. That ruling will be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Sources: Human Rights Watch, Reuters,  Deutsche Welle, The Indian Express, CNN, Times of India

On 21 March, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) opposition leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested and several other protesting party members detained by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a graft case linked to an alleged liquor policy scam. Kejriwal denies wrongdoing and plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Opposition parties have accused the ruling party of misusing federal investigative agencies to pressure political rivals. Three other AAP leaders have been jailed in the liquor case over the past year. Meanwhile, the Indian National Congress Party (INC) has accused the government of freezing its bank accounts ahead of the election in a tax case dating back to 2018-19, hampering its ability to campaign on a level playing field. Rights groups have criticized the timing of both developments ahead of the elections, calling the “growing crackdown” a breach of human rights. The United States, Germany and the United Nations weighed in with remarks on the recent arrest and the freezing of accounts, encouraging fair and transparent legal processes. The Indian Foreign Ministry strongly objected to both countries' remarks, iterating that "India's legal processes are based on an independent judiciary which is committed to objective and timely outcomes. Casting aspersions on that is unwarranted."

Sources: The Economist, Amnesty International, The Indian Express, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Reuters, The Wire

On 9 March, Arun Goel abruptly resigned as Election Commissioner (EC) citing personal reasons, days before the general election schedule announcement, leaving the Election Commission of India (ECI) with only one of its three mandated top officials. The government swiftly appointed two new ECs, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, selected by a three-member committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Minister Amit Shah, and the Leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lokh Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. This selection was made under the new Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act of 2023 passed in December 2023 –which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union cabinet minister on the three-member committee to regulate EC appointments. Opposition leaders criticized the Act and appointments, claiming Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu’s political ideologies align closely with the ruling party, potentially compromising the ECI’s independence. The Ministry of Law and Justice argued that senior government officials on the selection committee do not automatically imply bias. On 21 March, the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed challenges to the appointments, citing potential election chaos but criticizing the haste of the selection process. A Supreme Court challenge to the 2023 act is still pending.

Sources: International IDEA, The Hindu (1),  Al Jazeera, Times of India, The Hindu (2), The Economic Times, The Indian Express

India held its general elections from 19 April to 1 June, conducted over seven phases. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi won 240 seats, falling short of an outright majority, and needed to form a coalition government for the first time. The opposition INDIA alliance, led by the Indian National Congress party, secured 232 seats. Voter turnout was 65.8 per cent, down from 67.4 per cent in the 2019 election. Women’s political representation decreased slightly with 74 women elected (13.5 per cent) , down from 78 (14.4 per cent)  in the 2019 election. The election occurred against a backdrop of an intense heatwave that left at least 30 poll workers dead, according to media reports. Democracy experts have noted that the election was well-organized by the Election Commission in a transparent and accountable manner, despite some concerns related to an uneven playing field favouring the ruling party, opposition leaders’ imprisonment, media restrictions and alleged hate speech against Muslims during campaigning.

Sources: Election Commission of India, International IDEA, Indian Express, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Policy Center for the New South, Reuters

On 10 May, Arvind Kejriwal, leader of the Aam Admi Party (ADP) and Delhi State Chief Minister, was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court (SC) until 1 June, allowing him to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal had been arrested in March on corruption charges, which critics argued were politically motivated. While his supporters welcomed the decision, viewing it as an affirmation of due process and a fairer playing field, Union Home Minister Amit Shah criticized the judgment, claiming it was not “routine” and suggested preferential treatment. The SC denied these allegations, stating that “we said in our order what we felt was justified.”

Update: On 13 September, India's Supreme Court granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal, citing that his trial is unlikely to be completed for some time and that his "prolonged incarceration amounts to unjust deprivation of liberty." Kejriwal had been in jail for nearly five months.

Sources: International IDEA, Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Economic Times, BBC News

On 15 February, India’s Supreme Court (SC) struck down a fund-raising mechanism that allowed for individuals and companies to send unlimited anonymous political donations by receiving so-called “electoral bonds” from the State Bank of India (SBI) in exchange for donations to a political party or candidate. Critics of the system had long maintained that it favoured the ruling party by providing it with a significant financial advantage over its rivals, and by enabling SBI, and consequently the government, to track donations that influence political processes. In response to a petition brought by opposition members and a non-governmental organization, the court declared the electoral bonds scheme as “unconstitutional,” violating citizens’ right to government-held information. The decision mandates the SBI to immediately halt the issuance of electoral bonds. Political analysts and the opposition have praised the SC decision as a step towards transparency and strengthening democracy. Meanwhile, the ruling party has emphasized the importance of respecting every SC decision and accused opposition parties of politicising the matter.

Sources: The Indian Express, The New York Times, Financial Times, Times of India

On 8 January, India’s Supreme Court (SC) reversed the Gujarat state government’s decision to release 11 men convicted of gang-raping a pregnant Muslim woman (Bilkis Bano) during the 2002 Hindu-Muslim riots, ordering their return to jail. The decision follows a controversial order by the Gujarat government to set the men free in August 2022, which drew widespread condemnation. The verdict is premised on the ground that the Gujarat government had acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting the assailants early release, emphasizing that only the state government where the crime occurred (Maharashtra state) has the authority to release them. Human rights groups and legal experts have welcomed the SC’s decision to uphold the rule of law and protect women’s rights, although the question remains as to whether the Maharashtra government will later extend the convicts’ relief. There has been no immediate response from the Gujarat government on the matter.

Sources: International IDEA, The Hindu, CNN, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, The Indian Express

On 20 December, the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) passed several key bills, including the contentious Telecommunications Bill 2023 and three criminal law bills. The bills were passed after parliament suspended an unprecedented 146 members of opposition parties for allegedly disruptive conduct. The suspended MPs demanded a debate and statement from the government concerning a parliamentary security breach that occurred on 13 December, in which intruders set off smoke canisters in its lower house. The government rejected calls for a debate but ordered a probe into the incident. Rights organizations have criticized the hasty passage of bills without room for proper deliberation. Speaker of the lower house Om Birla argued security is within his purview and he is investigating the matter, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the security breach “very serious” but did not see the need for a parliamentary debate.

Sources: NPR, Deutsch Welle, The guardian, NDTV, The Economic Times

Amidst the suspension of opposition members, the government passed several significant bills, including the contentious Telecommunications Bill 2023, three criminal law bills and the Election Commissioner Bill.

The Telecommunications Bill aims to simplify and reform India’s century-old regulatory and licensing laws governing internet and mobile connections. It also allows the government to temporarily intercept or suspend telecom services in the interest of national security. It is not clear whether the Bill applies to Over-the-Top (OTT) communication services such as WhatsApp, Facebook and Google. Telecom minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has stated that OTT players will not be covered under the bill, however, some industry experts argue the definition under the bill is broad enough for their inclusion. Digital rights experts have called for the bill to be withdrawn, citing surveillance and privacy concerns in its broad definitions that grant authorities too much power. 

The Criminal Justice reform bills aim to remove archaic references to the British monarchy, redefine the scope of “terrorism” offences and introduce new punishments for mob lynchings and crimes against women. Notable provisions include expanded detention in police custody from a 15-day limit to 90 days; the offence of sedition has a more expansive definition that includes "offences against the state;" and a broadened definition of terrorism. Amnesty International noted that the new framework would intensify “a targeted crackdown on freedom of expression in the country.” Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated that criticism of the government that it has discreetly brought back the provision of sedition in a new form is misplaced, and noted that no loopholes have been left for the definition of terrorism to be misused. The government maintains that the bills are focused on delivering justice rather than handing down punishment. 

The Chief Election Commissioners and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023 allows for the creation of a committee comprised of the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and a cabinet minister (also nominated by the prime minister) to regulate the appointment of top election officials. Critics note that the bill contradicts a Supreme Court order in March 2023 recommending the Chief Justice of India to be one of the three-member panel instead of a cabinet minister. The government maintains that the bill ensures a transparent and objective selection process, with Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal also noting that the bill is in line with the SC's directions.

Sources: Al Jazeera, Hindustan Times, Tech Policy Press, Access Now, Amnesty International India, The Indian Express (1), The Indian Express (2), Times of India

On 11 December, India’s Supreme Court (SC) upheld a 2019 decision by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to revoke the special status for Jammu and Kashmir by abrogating Article 370, the section of the Indian Constitution which had since independence provided the region with autonomy from the central government. The Court affirmed the removal of the region’s autonomy and called for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to be restored to statehood as soon as possible. Since 2019, the region has been organised as a union territory, which means it is subject to more direct control by the national government than states. The SC also mandated state elections by 30 September 2024 and directed the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate human rights violations in the region since the 1980s – an action welcomed by human rights advocates. While considered a disappointing but expected ruling by some Kashmiri activists, Modi hailed the Article 370 abrogation verdict as “historic,” emphasizing the government’s commitment to extending the “fruits of progress” and benefits to all, particularly vulnerable and marginalized groups affected by Article 370.  In the aftermath of the SC ruling, Parliament passed two bills pertaining to amendments in the J&K Reservation and Reorganization acts, aimed at addressing representation concerns in the region. It remains unclear when J&K statehood would be restored and in consequence what implications this will have on Kashmiri’s rights and representation concerns.

Sources: Times of India, Amnesty International India, The Economic Times (1), The Diplomat, Nikkei Asia, The Economic Times (2)

On October 3, Indian authorities arrested two journalists from the independent news outlet NewsClick under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, after raiding 46 journalists’ homes. This follows allegations that NewsClick received illegal foreign funding, partly prompted by a New York Times investigation connecting NewsClick to a network supporting Chinese propaganda. Rights groups and media watchdogs note that the raids, carried out under misused counterterrorism laws, pose a broader threat to press freedom – further prompting serious concerns from the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights. The Union Minister responded to criticism by saying that “investigating agencies are independent and act according to law,” adding that no justification for the raids was needed. The Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal from the detained employees challenging their arrests.

Sources: The Hindu, The New York Times, Human Rights Watch, The Wire

On 17 October, India's Supreme Court rejected pleas to legalize same-sex marriage and declined to amend the Special Marriage Act, stating that such changes are beyond its legislative domain and should be addressed by Parliament. The government, which opposes same-sex marriage legalization, has not publicly responded to the ruling. The Court directed the government to form a committee to explore amendments benefiting same-sex couples without specifying explicit terms of reference. Despite acknowledging that the LGBTQIA+ community faces discrimination from the state, the court's decision led to widespread disappointment among rights experts and activists, who view it as the judiciary "washing its hands of the issue." Rights organizations are urging the government to bring about legislative changes, including amendments to adoption, divorce, healthcare, inheritance, and related laws.

Sources: Times of India, Human Rights Watch, The Indian Express, Reuters