Abstract

“If I find the constitution being misused, I’ll shall be the first to burn it.” This is a well-renowned quote from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, which incorporates the essence of possible misuse of the constitution and the chances of constitutional breakdowns. India is widely accepted as the largest among democracies and a country that incorporates an exhaustively diverse population, it demands a highly maneuvered strategy by the political parties and the people in power to sustain their presence in the political diaspora and this demand has always been put the spirit of democracy, and constitutionalism under a glaring threat by those who were in power.

The article would emphasize the reasons and the shortcomings that lead to constitutional breakdowns and would simultaneously review similar instances of the breakdowns where those reasons played a significant role. It encompasses the major instances where the constitutional morality and the democratic spirit of the nation were compromised by the authorities in pursuit of sustaining their political hegemony. In the final analysis, the article focuses on the undeniable need for a robust institutional memory to prevent the breach of constitutional morality, ethics, and loss of public trust.

Introduction:

The Constitution of a country serves as the apex legal framework of a state, through which the powers of the state are structured, exercised, and restrained. It is more than a collection of rules and regulations, but also outlines the cardinal principles and the core philosophy of governance. Aristotle had aptly defined the Constitution as a fundamental framework of political arrangement that delineates how power is structured and exercised in a city-state, determining the nature of governance and the comprehensive well-being of the people.[i] Machiavelli further reconstructed the notion by acknowledging that the constitution extends beyond to more than a set of codified principles and guidelines to include the prevalent customs, institutional practices, and even the collective nature of the population by which the political life of the state is structured.[ii]

The Indian Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most inclusive and progressive documents that laid the foundation of a democratic republic, which incorporates and promulgates the principle of constitutional morality and the rule of law. However, the constitutional history of India has witnessed instances where these cardinal principles were undermined, either through direct executive arbitrariness, legislative populism, or judicial complacency. From the advent of the constitution enactment to today’s era of globalized complexities, the constitutional spirit of India has been challenged consecutively by those in power, these occurrences should be accumulated and saved in the memories of the state institutions as a safeguard against democratic discontinuity and fidelity, and to ensure that these constitutional crisis does not recur.

Genesis Of Constitutional Breakdowns:

Constitutional breakdowns occur when the core and fundamental principles of the Constitution are compromised and violated by the institutions of government. It’s a process by which the government and its organs circumvent the constitutional checks and subvert the democratic norms of governance. The foremost reasons behind this overreach are the concentration of power in the union, the emasculation of the institutional autonomy vested in certain institutions, the desacralization of the constitutional morality, weakening of the judicial oversight, majoritarianism, electoral authoritarianism, and lack of institutional memory of the historical breaches.

The concentration of power is one of the significant factors of the constitutional breakdowns in India, particularly seen during the national emergency era. These provisions of the centralization of power negate the principle of the balance of power, undermine constitutional morality, and threaten democratic safeguards. The Indian system of parliamentary democracy is designed in a way that vests the power in the Union executive to dominate the parliamentary functions if the government enjoys an absolute majority, which discards the opposition voices and the enactment of laws without proper scrutiny, marginalizing the fundamental principles.[iii]

For the proper functioning of the democratic governance, certain institutions were granted autonomous power to check and balance the overreaching features of the government, and to ensure the integrity and morality of the constitution. These institutions, like the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Judiciary, are designed in a way to function independently and freely without any political intervention to secure the public trust and bolster the seal on the democratic features. BR Ambedkar, along with other constitutional framers, had repeatedly emphasized the functioning of autonomous institutions to ascertain the public trust the democratic governance[iv]. The freedom of these institutions has constantly succumbed to the political and influential diaspora of the country.

The judiciary is regarded as a guardian of the constitution and considered to be the cornerstone of the constitutional democracy. Its role is to maintain balance and oversee governmental actions that do not comply with the principles of the constitution or violate its fundamental philosophy. But when these roles and responsibilities get eroded, it ushers in the way for the government to undermine the constitutional morality and the rule of law.  Over time, we have enormous examples where the courts have increasingly failed at safeguarding fundamental rights, either by a virtual rejection of their constitutional duty until the matter at hand became infructuous or through wilful inaction. In the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of fundamental rights, including the right to life, during the Emergency period, effectively permitting the state to detain individuals without judicial recourse. later, this ruling was extensively criticised by the legal experts. However, this precedent was decisively overturned in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the inviolability of the right to life and personal liberty, emphasizing that such fundamental rights cannot be suspended even in times of emergency. The arbitrary decisions of the Courts, like in the case of ADM Jabalpur, had allowed the state to get away with unconscionable acts and led to an erosion of constitutional faith.[v]

Majoritarianism and Electoral authoritarianism are concept that advocates the hegemony of the majority over the governance of the state, and it is one of the biggest factors that pave the way for the constitutional breakdown. Electoral authoritarians use the democratic way to subsume the wings of the governance by undermining the constitutional checks, protection of minority rights, and the pluralist nature of the constitution. These regimes, however, uphold the electoral validation but lack the tenets of substantive democracy. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2020, was the first instance in the constitutional history of India where the country had witnessed an explicit exclusion of one of the minorities from its ambit. These attempts were a step towards restructuring India’s citizenship laws along with the ethno-religious lines.[vi]

These were among the most significant causes of the continuing constitutional breakdowns through the organs of the government. The constitutional breakdowns are not merely the failure of the laws but the failure of democracy, ethics, constitutionality of the state, and negation of the vision of the constitution makers.

Major Instances Of The Constitutional Breakdowns: 

The proclamation of national emergency in 1975 is extensively recognized as the pioneer of the constitutional breakdowns. Indeed, the period of national emergency can be regarded as one of the significant breakdowns of the democratic values and the constitutional morality of the nation, but it was neither the first nor the last. From the advent of the constitution enactment to today’s era of globalized complexities, the constitutional spirit has been challenged consecutively by those in power. The dismissal of the democratically elected government in Kerala, the proclamation of the Emergency in 1975, and the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status are pivotal instances reflecting the Union government’s extraordinary exercise of power.

Presidential Rule, Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, deals with the imposition of President’s Rule in a state, allowing the central government to take over the governance of a state when its constitutional machinery has broken down is one of the three types of emergency provisions imbibed in the Indian Constitution. It’s a crucial tool to ensure checks over the proper governance of the state by the central government. It’s a mechanism to uphold the constitutionality of the state government and prevent the state from an administrative and constitutional collapse. But it should be used in bona fide intention by the central government; the misuse of this provision could lead to major breakdowns of the democratic values, ethics, and constitutional morality.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had consecutively emphasized the possible misuse of the said Article, and he hoped that it would remain a “dead letter.”[vii] which means it would only be used as a last resort against the complete breakdown of the state’s constitutional machinery.

The dismissal of the democratically elected communist government of Kerala in 1959 signifies the historical misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution. On 31 July 1951, on the advice of the Union Cabinet, the president invoked Article 356 to dismiss the elected government of Kerala headed by Chief Minister E. M. S. Namboodiripad. There were no apparent reasons that could be said to invoke this Article; the elected government enjoyed a glaring majority in the State Legislature, and it was one among the few states which do not have a congress-led government. The majority of the communist led government in Kerala, with the support of independent parties, was the only reason that paved the way for the Union government to dismiss the elected government by misusing its power.[viii]

In 1977, the emergency period had just ended, and the Janta party vehemently denounced the Congress party for its overreaching step of arbitrarily invoking the National Emergency clause. The country had witnessed a widespread outrage against the Congress party that eventually led to its fall, and the Janata Party came to power at the union level. But there were certain states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh, where the government was led by Congress chief ministers. The new Union Home Minister, Mr Charan Singh, wrote to these chief ministers to recommend that their assembly should be dissolved and to seek a fresh election. The implicit warning was that if they don’t comply with it, the Union government will invoke Article 356 and subsume the legislative assembly.[ix]

Subsequently, the state government of Rajasthan and others were alarmed by this writing and moved to the Supreme Court of India, which resulted in a landmark Case of State of Rajasthan and Ors v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592. The judgment limits the union government and the president’s power to enjoy this power arbitrarily. It’s a cornerstone judgment that upheld the democratic and federal nature of the Indian Constitution.[x]

The most recent and significant case of constitutional breakdown that India witnessed can be exemplified by the contentious and arbitrary manner in which the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was revoked. The steps that led to the dissolution of the special status of the state exemplify the constitutional breakdown achieved through strategic manipulation of the established procedures. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019,[xi] was passed by the parliament at a time when the governance of the State was in the hands of the central government. Eminent lawyer Mr Fali S Nariman opined that Article 370 could be discarded from the Constitution. But even Nariman contended that the central government’s legal strategy has been erroneous and should be called flawed by the court.[xii] After the dissolution of the special status, the government used extra suppressive measures to suppress the outbreak and curb the voices of the dissenters.

The communication of the state was scrapped, and more than 50,000 security personnel were deployed in the region to ensure the non-occurrence of any outbreak; more than 4000 political leaders were detained, including the former Chief Minister. The government justified these restrictions under the pretext of ensuring peace and tranquility in the region.[xiii]

The abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir should be embarked as a quintessential moment of the violation of human rights, dignity, and liberty. The method used can be regarded as an institutionalized violence against the people of Kashmir.

Importance Of Institutional Memory As A Safeguard Against The Constitutional Breakdown:

The principle of institutional memory refers to the knowledge, experience, and expertise accumulated by any organisation over time from practice, enabling it to function more effectively in order to make informed decisions. Those memories are as changeable as human memory, evolving in response to professional imperatives, community expectations, and opportunity.[xiv] These types of memory become more significant in the area of constitutional governance as it is vital to uphold core constitutional principles like democracy, secularism, the rule of law, and social justice. Institutional memory affects the overall standard of the organisation or society at large. It not only improves the efficiency but also becomes a guiding light for innovation by learning from past mistakes.

The Institutional memory plays a significant role in safeguarding and preserving the constitutional values through:

Preventing Arbitrariness: The constitution functions on the principle of sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, and republicanism. The institutional memory preserves the erosion of the same by maintaining past judicial precedents, legislative intent, and procedures. During the emergency, laws like the MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act),1971,[xv] were used arbitrarily to detain individuals without any proper justification. Using MISA against its political opponents, the Government has done little to expand its political cooperation.[xvi] These were further set aside and till now remain as a guiding light for the procedure to be just, fair, and reasonable.

Public Advocacy: The continuous challenges arising from misuse of administrative power through different controversial acts like the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act),1967,[xvii] and the NSA (National Security Act),1980,[xviii] created the ground for people from civil society and legal experts to act as intermediaries to fulfil public needs and constitutional values.

Policy Influence and Change: The institutional memory helps in enshrining the constitutional principle through research and campaigns in the policy development. For example, the RTI Act, 2005, was a result of continuous sustained advocacy by different groups, also the Right to Persons with disabilities Act, 2016, with the organisational influence made the ground for acceptance and policy building of the act.

Consequences Of Neglecting Institutional Memory:

Democratic backsliding becomes an apparent threat when governments discharge their functions in the absence of institutional memory and constitutional morality. In the absence of these clear and consistent guiding principles, there will always remain a possibility of repeating the past mistakes, such as suppressing the civil liberties of the citizens, centralization of power, and overriding democratic principles. This subjugation of democratic principles can pave the path for an authoritarian and arbitrary government, undermining the kernel philosophy of the constitution.

Simultaneously, a significant lack of fairness or arbitrarily making decisions by the state institutions stains and emasculates the trust in the public domain. When the citizens feel that the accountability and reliability of the state are weakened, their trust in the public institutions diminishes significantly, which makes the system more unstable and vulnerable. Moreover, ignorance of the historical lessons could deepen the rifts in governance, bolster the authoritarian tendency of the government, and undermine constitutional values, ethics, and morality. Without considering the past instances of breakdowns, it is impossible to safeguard the constitutional morality and democratic fabric of the nation.

Conclusion: 

The Indian democracy is widely recognized as one of the largest among the democracies of the world, though the democratic spirit of the nation has been put to the test on numerous occasions, which began just after independence and has been continuously impugned in today’s era of globalized complexities. The period of national emergency is regarded as one of the major instances of the constitutional breach, but it was neither the first nor the last one. These breakdowns are caused due to the complex interplay of factors such as the concentration of power, judicial complacency, majoritarianism aligned with electoral authoritarianism, and the consecutive misuse of Article 356 by the Union government. these cause the dismantling of the constitutional spirit and the federal balance of the nation.

The preservation of the institutional memory is the crucial safeguard to curtail and prevent any further constitutional breakdowns. Learning lessons from the past crisis and revamping those shortcomings responsible for the breakdowns by ensuring the proper judicial oversight, and fostering public advocacy. It helps in preventing any further democratic breakdowns and tends to maintain proper governance, public trust, democratic values, and helps in promoting constitutional morality, democratic values, institutional autonomy, and strengthens the democratic resilience of the country.

References:

1. ARISTOTLE, THE POLITICS, bk. III (Benjamin Jowett trans., Oxford Univ. Press 1905).

• Mortimer N. S. Sellers, Niccolò Machiavelli: Father of Modern Constitutionalism, 28 RATIO JURIS 216 (2015), https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2044&context=all_fac.

• Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966, pp. 162–168.
• Shaik, A. (2025, January 21). Retrieved from Radiance viewsweekly: https://radianceweekly.net/the-silent-death-of-autonomy-how-indias-state-institutions-have-been-compromised/
• Bhatt, R. (2022, May 5). Retrieved from THE INDIAN FORUM: https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/how-judicial-inaction-killing-constitutional-faith-thousand-cuts
• Ahmed, M. Z. (2025, June 25). Retrieved from THE WIRE: https://thewire.in/politics/democracy-in-retreat-comparing-the-emergency-with-modis-india
• Lawsisto. (n.d.). Article 356 – A dead letter of the Constitution – Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. Retrieved July 5, 2025, from https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/NTA1OQ==/Article-356-A-Dead-letter-of-the-Constitution-Dr-Bhimrao-Ambedkar
• Ananth, V. K. (2021, July 31). Retrieved from THE POLIS PROJECT: https://www.thepolisproject.com/read/the-dismissal-of-the-first-elected-communist-government-in-kerala-an-abuse-of-article-356-of-the-constitution/
• India Today. (1977, May 15). Impending dissolution of Congress-led state assemblies reaches a controversial climax. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19770515-impending-dissolution-of-congress-led-state-assemblies-reaches-a-controversial-climax-823713-2014-08-07

1. (2025, February 6). Retrieved from LawBhoomi: https://lawbhoomi.com/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-union-of-india/
2. Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India). Retrieved from https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A2019-34.pdf
3. Bhasin, A. (2023, December 18). The Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 brushes aside both legality and history. Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved from https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-supreme-courts-verdict-on-article-370-brushes-aside-both-legality-and-history/

1. Imran Ahmed, M.S. (2024, January 2024). Retrieved from isas.nus.edu.sg. 
2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049670.2015.1073657#d1e112

1. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Act No. 26 of 1971, India. Retrieved from https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/11097/1/maintenance_of_internal.pdf

1. https://mlsondhi.org/writings/indian-politics/article-005

1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Act No. 37 of 1967, India. Retrieved from https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1470?view_type=browse

1. National Security Act, 1980, Act No. 65 of 1980, India. Retrieved from https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/ISdivII_NSAAct1980_20122018%5B1%5D.pdf

Endnotes

[i] ARISTOTLE, THE POLITICS bk. III (Benjamin Jowett trans., Oxford Univ. Press 1905).

[ii] Sellers, M. N. S. (2015). Niccolò Machiavelli: Father of modern constitutionalism. Ratio Juris, 28(2), 216–225.

[iii] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 162.

[iv] Shaik, A. (2025, January 21). Retrieved from Radiance viewsweekly:

[v] Bhatt, R. (2022, May 5). Retrieved from THE INDIAN FORUM:

[vi] Ahmed, M. Z. (2025, June 25). Retrieved from THE WIRE:

[vii] Lawsisto. (n.d.). Article 356 – A dead letter of the Constitution – Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar

[viii] Ananth, V. K. (2021, July 31). Retrieved from THE POLIS PROJECT:

[ix] India Today. (1977, May 15). Impending dissolution of Congress-led state assemblies reaches a controversial climax

[x] (2025, February 6). Retrieved from LawBhoomi

[xi] Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)

[xii] Bhasin, A. (2023, December 18). The Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 brushes aside both legality and history. Supreme Court Observer

[xiii] Imran Ahmed, M.S. (2024, January 2024).

[xiv] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049670.2015.1073657#d1e112

[xv] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Act No. 26 of 1971

[xvi] https://mlsondhi.org/writings/indian-politics/article-005

[xvii] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Act No. 37 of 1967

[xviii] National Security Act, 1980, Act No. 65 of 1980