India’s Praetorian Drift: When Faith Tries to Overrule the Constitution

October 12, 2025

Adil Azmi

When self-proclaimed defenders of faith confront constitutional institutions, the danger is not episodic — it is structural. India’s democratic framework rests on the belief that religion can inspire citizens, but only the Constitution governs the state. Over the past decade, however, this boundary has blurred. Self-anointed “saviours” of religion, often backed by political patronage, are no longer content with moral influence — they are actively confronting, intimidating and at times overriding democratic institutions.

This phenomenon signals a deeper shift toward what political theorists call a Praetorian society — where organised groups outside the constitutional framework exert decisive influence over state institutions, undermining their authority and autonomy.

Judiciary Under Siege

The judiciary, envisioned as the final defender of constitutional morality, has faced increasingly direct assaults. The recent shoe-hurling incident targeting the Chief Justice of India was not an isolated act of defiance. It was a symbolic attempt to humiliate the highest judicial office, a public message that religious mobilisation will not hesitate to challenge constitutional power if verdicts run contrary to their sentiments. This is part of a broader pattern. When the Supreme Court opened Sabarimala Temple to women of all ages (2018), mobs backed by religious outfits violently blocked women devotees, attacked journalists, and vilified judges.

Rather than framing the issue as a matter of rights, religious groups cast it as “an assault on faith,” thereby delegitimising the judiciary’s authority. During the Ayodhya dispute hearings, both sides issued veiled warnings of “consequences” if the verdict went against them, creating an environment of pre-emptive pressure on the judiciary. Similarly, cases concerning personal laws, same-sex marriage, and religious conversions have triggered orchestrated campaigns targeting judges personally, attempting to influence judicial outcomes through intimidation, not legal argument. When verdicts must contend with the threat of mob mobilisation, the judiciary’s autonomy is compromised, and constitutional adjudication is reduced to a contest between legal reason and street power.

Legislature Under Intimidation

The legislature has also been forced to operate under the shadow of religious pressure. Debates on issues like Uniform Civil Code, triple talaq, and cow protection laws have repeatedly witnessed religious groups threatening legislators, mobilising street power to shape or stall laws. During the triple talaq legislation, some Muslim lawmakers faced targeted campaigns branding them as “betrayers” of the faith for supporting the Bill. The result is a narrowing of deliberative space. Lawmaking is increasingly shaped not by constitutional debate, but by the ability of interest groups to mobilise pressure outside Parliament. This undermines legislative sovereignty and replaces rational lawmaking with emotional veto.

Mob Lynchings and Vigilantism: A Direct Assault on Rule of Law

The most visible manifestation of this Praetorian drift is the rise of cow vigilantism and mob lynchings, often aided by political rhetoric that valorises extra-constitutional actors. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), between 2015 and 2022, there were over 280 incidents of mob lynching reported across India, many linked to allegations of cow slaughter or beef consumption. Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Haryana and Rajasthan accounted for the majority of such cases. One of the most infamous incidents was the Dadri lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq (2015) in Uttar Pradesh, where a mob killed him over rumours of beef in his fridge. In Jharkhand, Alimuddin Ansari was lynched in broad daylight in 2017; in Rajasthan, Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer, was beaten to death on suspicion of cow smuggling. What makes these cases alarming is the subsequent political response. Several elected representatives garlanded convicts, attended vigils for the accused, and issued statements portraying vigilantes as “protectors of dharma”. This normalised vigilante violence, implicitly signalling that religious sentiment can override the rule of law.

The influence of these self-styled religious guardians is evident in the behaviour of law enforcement agencies. NCRB data reveals that in many cow-related violence cases, FIRs were first registered against the victims or their families for alleged cow slaughter, while action against attackers came much later — if at all. In several states, vigilante groups have been known to accompany police on raids, particularly in cases related to so-called “love jihad” or illegal slaughter, blurring the line between state action and mob power. Senior police officials have, in some cases, openly consulted local religious leaders to “maintain peace,” inadvertently granting them a quasi-official role in conflict resolution. This undermines police neutrality and transforms religious leaders into parallel authority figures. When law enforcement begins to act under pressure from religious groups, the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence — a cornerstone of modern governance — begins to erode.

The Dangerous Silence of Civil Society

Equally worrying is the growing silence of civil society, often stemming from fear of being branded “anti-national” or “anti-religion.” Scholars, NGOs, citizen groups and public intellectuals — traditionally key in shaping democratic discourse — have become increasingly cautious in questioning religious majoritarianism or vigilantism. Those who do speak up face social ostracism, legal harassment, or targeted campaigns labelling them “traitors” or “foreign agents.” As the historian Alexis de Tocqueville famously wrote, “The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.” When civil society retreats into silence, the burden of defending the Constitution falls solely on institutions, which can be isolated and overwhelmed. A vibrant democracy requires active citizens, not fearful spectators.

A Test for the Republic

India is at a crucial juncture. Attacks on the judiciary, legislative intimidation, mob vigilantism, the bending of police to sectarian will, and civil society’s silence together signal a deep structural challenge. If this trajectory continues, India risks drifting into a Praetorian order, where religious groups and vigilante forces function as parallel power centres, deciding what is permissible — not the Constitution. Restoring balance will require political courage, judicial firmness, administrative neutrality, and civil society’s active engagement. Faith can inspire values; it cannot dictate governance. The republic’s institutions must stand firm, for once the line between moral authority and mob power is erased, constitutional authority itself becomes negotiable.