Courts, Elections, and Silence: A Direct Challenge to India’s Democratic Institutions

 

Courts, Elections, and Silence: A Direct Challenge to India’s Democratic Institutions

Watch the Video: https://www.youtube.com/live/X5FEmCLIAvU

Hindi Version: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_19.html

This article is not based on opinion, social media narratives, or political loyalty. It is based on recent election results and publicly observable facts, and it raises a question that India’s institutions, particularly the courts, continue to avoid answering.

In the most recent local elections in Punjab, Kerala, and Telangana, the Bharatiya Janata Party received an electoral response that cannot be ignored. In several constituencies, the BJP secured as few as one vote. Across these elections, nearly ninety percent of the seats were won by non-BJP parties. These were not isolated contests or symbolic defeats. They were real elections conducted among real voters, producing results that stand in sharp contrast to the narrative of overwhelming popular support claimed at the national level.

Alongside the Bihar election, eight by-elections were held. Out of those eight seats, the BJP was victorious in only one. At the same time, the Bihar election itself produced an outcome that many opposition leaders and observers continue to describe as stolen. When repeated patterns show rejection of a party at the local and by-election level while the same party claims sweeping national mandates, the discrepancy demands scrutiny. Yet India’s courts remain silent.

Rahul Gandhi has presented data in public forums and court settings pointing to these inconsistencies, including comparisons between paper-based voting outcomes and electronic election results. The question is no longer whether concerns exist. The question is how many times the judiciary must be shown such evidence before it chooses to act. Silence in the face of repeated contradictions is not neutrality. It is abdication.

The contrast becomes even sharper when one looks closely at Punjab. After nearly four years in power, the Aam Aadmi Party won over seventy percent of the seats in the recent local elections. At the same time, it lost 319 seats by margins of fewer than 100 votes. Any party intent on abusing state power could have influenced these razor-thin results. Yet it did not. Those seats were lost, accepted, and acknowledged publicly.

Arvind Kejriwal and Bhagwant Singh Mann faced the press without hesitation. They celebrated victories, acknowledged defeats, and congratulated opposition winners. They made it clear that the party was prepared to share all electronic records, including voting videos and preserved ballots, for seats they won and seats they lost. This matters because in local elections, the State Election Commission reports to the state government. If misuse of power were the objective, Punjab provided both the opportunity and the proximity to do so. The restraint shown is not theoretical. It is measurable.

There was no fear that transparency would expose wrongdoing. That confidence comes only from knowing that power was not abused.

Now compare that openness with the behavior of the Election Commission of India. Requests for electronic data from the 2024 general elections have been met with resistance or refusal. Even state-level election data remains inaccessible. If elections are clean, there is no justification for hiding records. Institutions do not hide achievements. They hide crimes.

When a government passes laws in Parliament while knowing that its electoral legitimacy is deeply questioned, those laws lose moral authority. Many of these bills benefit corporate partners and political allies far more than the public. This is where people feel pain, not in ideology but in lived reality. Governance without genuine representation becomes extraction, not leadership.

History shows how nations are captured. Lies are repeated until they sound like truth. National pride is weaponized to silence dissent. Internal divisions are inflamed so people fight each other instead of questioning power. This is not love for the nation. It is the use of the nation as cover.

To the followers of the BJP, I ask simple and direct questions. When was the last time Narendra Modi held an open press conference and faced unscripted questions from journalists? If the government has delivered on infrastructure, foreign relations, and economic growth, why not defend those achievements publicly and transparently? Accomplishments do not require hiding.

If allegations regarding educational qualifications or past conduct are false, why not address them directly? Why deploy agencies such as the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, and Income Tax Department to intimidate critics, opposition leaders, and journalists who present evidence? Why do judges who show independence face pressure, transfers, or replacement? Why must fear replace facts?

Some claim India’s global standing has improved. Where and how? Show the evidence. Speak openly. Debate publicly. Truth does not fear questioning.

If the people are truly happy with this government, then there should be no hesitation in holding a genuinely free and fair election with full transparency and judicial oversight. Let the people choose again, and let that choice be unquestionable. If this government believes it governs with consent, then it should welcome scrutiny, not suppress it.

I do not know what immediate good these articles do. But they serve as a record. A record written while living abroad, based on information coming directly from political leaders and election outcomes, not filtered through controlled media narratives. One day, when people ask who spoke while institutions stayed silent, this record will exist.

Democracy does not collapse overnight. It erodes when courts know the facts and choose silence, when institutions abandon courage, and when citizens are told to accept power without proof. Silence, especially from those sworn to uphold the Constitution, is never neutral.

Note:

Most BJP supporters claim the nation is better off under BJP rule because of improved infrastructure. What is rarely acknowledged is that the cost of this development has been transferred directly to the public. Infrastructure built on Indian land is funded by taxpayers, yet control is routinely handed over to private companies that operate it for profit. Citizens are then required to pay repeatedly to use assets that were built with their own money.

This raises a fundamental question: if the public financed these roads, why are they charged again through tolls? The absence of a clear answer may explain why the BJP avoids facing a free press. These are not questions that can be addressed through slogans or controlled speeches.

If infrastructure development truly serves the public interest, it should withstand open scrutiny in a press conference. Instead, toll-based models increase transportation costs across the economy. Retailers pass these added costs on to consumers, which is why the prices of everyday goods continue to rise. What is presented as development on paper becomes a permanent financial burden in daily life.

In the end, people pay twice first as taxpayers who fund the infrastructure, and again as consumers who bear the ongoing cost of using it.