DAINIK RUSTAM-E-HIND
Charanjit Singh, New Delhi
The Constitution Belongs to the People, Power Is Held in Trust for the People, and Every Public Office Carries a Duty of Accountability
From New Delhi, Journalist Usha Mahna
From the Prime Minister to a police constable, from Members of Parliament to judges, and from the media to security agencies—every institution must remember that, in a democracy, rights come with responsibilities.
India won its independence through the struggle, sacrifice, and martyrdom of millions of people. The framers of the Constitution established a system in which no king, family, political party, religious organisation, or powerful individual has the right to claim ownership of the country.
An Indian citizen is not a subject of any Prime Minister. They are a citizen of an independent republic. Their dignity does not depend on the favour of a political leader. Their rights do not come from membership in a political party. Their fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution.
Whether the Prime Minister is Narendra Modi or someone else, and whether the government is led by the Bharatiya Janata Party or any other political party, the Constitution and the law of India must be the same standard for everyone.
Power is held in trust for the people. Public office is not a private privilege, and a uniform is not a certificate placing anyone above the law.
This is the central message of this editorial.
1. The Constitution Is Supreme: The Country Is Not Anyone’s Private Property
The Preamble to the Constitution of India declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and establishes the ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. Article 19 guarantees citizens freedoms including freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, subject to constitutional restrictions. Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty.
These constitutional guarantees have real meaning only when an ordinary citizen can fearlessly ask the government:
Why were my rights violated?
Why was no action taken on my complaint?
Why has my family not received justice?
What is the legal basis for stopping my peaceful protest?
Where is the account of the public money spent in my name?
And if an official breaks the law, who will take action against that official?
A citizen who raises these questions is not an enemy of democracy. That citizen is participating in the process of making democracy accountable.
2. The Prime Minister Is Accountable to the People; the People Are Not Subordinate to the Prime Minister
Narendra Modi became the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2001. In February 2002, he won the Rajkot-II Assembly by-election. He subsequently became Prime Minister following the Lok Sabha elections of 2014, 2019, and 2024.
The constitutional sequence of these events is available in public records. His appointment as Prime Minister cannot be called illegal merely because the Bharatiya Janata Party’s parliamentary party first elected him as its leader. The appointment of the Prime Minister takes place under Article 75 of the Constitution.
However, the constitutional validity of a Prime Minister’s appointment does not mean that every decision taken by the Prime Minister must automatically be considered lawful.
The legitimacy of a government and the legality of each of its actions are two separate questions. Even a government that has won an election remains subject to judicial review, parliamentary oversight, public criticism, and accountability.
The Prime Minister must answer questions concerning government decisions, public expenditure, policy outcomes, and administrative accountability.
Similarly, serious allegations against a Prime Minister must be investigated on the basis of evidence. Popularity does not place anyone above the law, just as political opposition does not automatically establish anyone’s guilt.
India needs neither blind devotion nor blind opposition. India needs evidence, reason, and justice.
3. Electoral Transparency: The Voter’s Trust Must Come First
Public controversies have arisen concerning Narendra Modi’s marital status, educational qualifications, and election affidavits.
In the 2014 election, he declared Jashodaben as his wife. Contemporary media reports had also discussed the fact that the marital-status column had been left blank in earlier election nominations.
A significant Supreme Court judgment concerning the disclosure of educational qualifications came in May 2002. Therefore, the documents relating to the February 2002 by-election and those relating to subsequent elections must be examined separately.
Regarding caste, official statements associated with the National Commission for Backward Classes indicate that the Modh-Ghanchi community was included in Gujarat’s state list in 1994 and in the Central Other Backward Classes list in 1999. Therefore, the claim that Narendra Modi arranged for his caste to be included in the OBC list after becoming Chief Minister is not supported by the available official account.
Nevertheless, the broader question of electoral transparency remains important.
We demand that candidates’ original nomination papers, affidavits, applicable rules, and relevant official decisions be made as accessible as possible to citizens. Wherever discrepancies are alleged, they should be verified. Wherever a violation of the rules is established, action should be taken in accordance with the law.
This demand is not limited to Narendra Modi. It must apply equally to every Prime Minister, Chief Minister, Member of Parliament, Member of a Legislative Assembly, and election candidate.
A voter’s trust is strengthened not by political propaganda but by information that can be independently verified.
4. The Farmers’ Protest: The Government’s Duty Is Not Merely to Make Laws, but Also to Listen to the People
The farmers’ protest of 2020–2021 brought the need for dialogue between the government and citizens to the centre of national debate.
Thousands of farmers gathered at Delhi’s borders to oppose the agricultural laws. During the protest, farmer organisations claimed that more than 700 farmers had died. In December 2021, the Union Government informed Parliament that the Ministry of Agriculture did not maintain a consolidated record of farmers who had died during the protest.
It is important to understand the distinction: all deaths that occurred during the protest cannot automatically be attributed to police action. The causes of death varied. Nevertheless, the demand for a verifiable public account of the deaths associated with such a large-scale protest is reasonable.
The government has a duty to listen to citizens’ grievances, engage in dialogue, and protect human rights while maintaining law and order.
If police force was misused during any protest, if anyone was unlawfully detained, or if any family suffered unjustified harm, the incident must be investigated impartially.
The police must not treat farmers as enemies. Their duty is to protect citizens and public order in accordance with the law.
Listening to farmers is not a sign of weakness on the part of the government. It is a democratic responsibility.
5. Manipur: The Safety of Citizens Must Stand Above Politics
The ethnic violence that began in Manipur in May 2023 raised serious questions concerning civilian safety, displacement, relief, and justice.
When citizens are forced to leave their homes, families are separated, serious allegations of crimes against women emerge, and trust between communities breaks down, the government’s responsibility extends far beyond issuing statements.
The Union Government, the state administration, and the relevant security agencies must be accountable for protecting citizens, providing relief and rehabilitation, ensuring impartial investigations into crimes, and cooperating with judicial proceedings.
We demand that verifiable public reports be made available on the condition of affected families, the progress of registered cases, the state of relief camps, and rehabilitation plans.
No political party should use the suffering in Manipur merely as a weapon to accuse its opponents. Ensuring justice and safety for affected citizens must remain the highest priority.
If violence continues, the current situation should be clarified through recent and reliable records. Even where peace has been restored, the responsibilities of justice and rehabilitation do not come to an end.
6. The Voices of Students and Young People Must Not Be Treated as Crimes
Student protests often arise from grievances concerning recruitment examinations, question-paper leaks, irregularities in results, unemployment, and the education system.
For a student, an examination represents years of hard work and is closely connected to the financial circumstances of the family. When allegations of irregularities arise in an examination, the relevant institution must investigate them on the basis of evidence and provide clear information about the findings and results.
Young people cannot be treated as criminals merely because they disagree with the government.
If violence occurs during a protest, those involved in the violence should be identified on the basis of evidence. If the use of police force becomes necessary, it must be lawful, proportionate, and accountable.
The government must respond to the grievances of young people. Where mistakes have been made, they should be acknowledged and corrected. Where allegations are false, the facts should be clarified through documentary evidence.
Young people are the future of the country. Listening to their voices means listening to the future of the nation.
7. The October 10 Protest and the Accountability of the Election Commission
Controversies surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls have raised serious public questions about the independence and transparency of the Election Commission.
According to a news report dated September 25, 2026, two Election Commissioners had formally raised objections to certain Commission decisions on at least fourteen occasions. On the other hand, the Commission maintained that decisions had been taken unanimously. These conflicting claims must be examined through original records, the Commission’s procedures, and judicial review.
According to news reports published on October 9, 2026, Delhi Police refused permission for the Cockroach Janata Party and certain student organisations to hold a proposed protest at Jantar Mantar on October 10. The police cited late notice, alleged violations of conditions during a previous protest, and law-and-order concerns. Protesters and other petitioners challenged the restrictions.
Both the reasons stated by the police and the constitutional rights of the protesters must be considered.
A restriction on a peaceful protest is not automatically unlawful. However, it must be examined in light of its legal basis, the actual security requirements, and the principle of proportionality.
Where permission for a protest is denied, the administration should, wherever possible, consider an alternative venue or arrangement. If restrictions are imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, their legal basis, scope, and duration should be subject to scrutiny.
Whether the name of an eligible citizen has been wrongly removed from the electoral roll is a separate and extremely important question. Every eligible voter must have a genuine opportunity to check their name, file an objection, and pursue an appeal in accordance with the law.
The independence of the Election Commission does not mean that its decisions are beyond question. Equally, criticism of the Commission does not mean that every allegation against it is automatically proven.
The rights of voters, the impartiality of the Election Commission, and the freedom of protesters must all be protected.
8. Security Agencies: To Protect the People, Not to Intimidate Them
India’s police, Central Armed Police Forces, investigative agencies, and other security institutions exist to enforce the law and protect citizens.
They possess powers, but those powers come with limitations and responsibilities.
Detaining a person, using force, conducting a search, or regulating a public assembly must be carried out on legally established grounds and in accordance with the prescribed procedures. No official has the right to behave arbitrarily towards citizens merely because they wear a uniform.
The firing at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 under General Dyer remains a horrifying example of state repression during British colonial rule. The purpose of police and security agencies in independent India must be fundamentally different from that colonial mindset.
This comparison is not intended to label any present-day official as another General Dyer without evidence. It is a warning based on a clear principle:
The power to enforce the law must never be used in a way that disregards the dignity of citizens or their right to life.
The respect enjoyed by the police comes from public trust. That trust can survive only when the police act impartially, investigate complaints, properly account for the use of force, and hold officials accountable for wrongdoing.
9. The Judiciary: Independence Must Be Accompanied by Impartiality and Public Trust
The judiciary is not a department of the government. It has an independent constitutional position, and its principal responsibility is to administer justice in accordance with the law.
Judges must remain free from political pressure. Judicial decisions may also be criticised, but such criticism should be based on facts, law, and respectful language.
If someone disagrees with a judicial decision, they may pursue appeals, review petitions, and other remedies available under the law. Allegations of corruption, bias, or pressure against a judge should not be treated as established unless supported by sufficient evidence and an appropriate process.
Similarly, the legitimate questions surrounding judicial accountability cannot be permanently dismissed merely in the name of judicial independence.
Public confidence in the judiciary is strengthened by independent, impartial, and reasoned judgments.
10. The Media: A Watchdog for the People, Not a Publicity Machine for Those in Power
The media is regarded as an important watchdog of democracy. Its responsibility is to independently examine the actions of the government, opposition, industry, administration, and public institutions.
This does not mean that every news report must oppose the government. Reporting genuine government achievements is also journalism. However, investigating mistakes, allegations of corruption, human rights violations, and the use of public money is equally essential.
If a journalist faces pressure, threats, or obstruction in carrying out their work, the complaint should be investigated impartially. Media organisations must not compromise factual accuracy because of advertising interests, financial pressure, or political connections.
At the same time, journalism must recognise its own responsibilities. No person should be declared a criminal without evidence. A death should not be described as a political conspiracy without investigation. A government action should not be called unlawful without examining the applicable law and the relevant order.
The credibility of the media depends on both its courage and its factual integrity.
11. Standards of Public Conduct for the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliament, and Administration
The Prime Minister and ministers have a duty to make decisions in the public interest, answer questions in Parliament, and ensure accountability within their departments.
Members of Parliament and state legislatures must represent citizens’ interests, consider legislation seriously, and scrutinise government decisions.
The executive has a duty to implement the law, provide public services, and resolve citizens’ grievances.
The judiciary has a duty to deliver independent and impartial justice.
The media has a duty to uncover facts, question those in power, and provide the public with verified information.
The Election Commission has a duty to ensure an independent and impartial electoral process.
The police and security agencies have a duty to protect citizens and public order in accordance with the law.
These institutions have different powers and functions, but their performance must be assessed against the Constitution, the law, the public interest, and the principle of accountability.
12. We Seek Not Merely Criticism, but Reform of the System
Dainik Rustam-E-Hind calls for the following public reforms:
1. Transparency: Public decisions, government expenditure, and law-and-order orders should be disclosed to the maximum extent permitted by law.
2. Independent investigations: Wherever credible evidence indicates serious abuse, an impartial and independent investigation must be ensured.
3. Civil rights: The rights to peaceful protest, freedom of expression, and lawful grievance redressal must be protected.
4. Police accountability: Complaints concerning detention, the use of force, and human rights violations must undergo independent review, with appropriate action taken where wrongdoing is established.
5. Electoral transparency: Candidates’ affidavits, changes to electoral rolls, and records relating to the electoral process should be accessible and verifiable.
6. Justice for victims: Transparent accounts should be provided concerning the condition of victims and the progress of judicial proceedings relating to the farmers’ protest, the violence in Manipur, students’ grievances, and other cases.
7. Parliamentary oversight: The functioning of public institutions should receive serious scrutiny in Parliament and the relevant state legislatures.
8. Witness protection: Witnesses assisting investigations into serious crimes or official misconduct should receive protection in accordance with the law.
9. Media freedom: Effective arrangements must protect journalists, facilitate access to information, and support independent fact-checking.
10. Equality before the law: No person should receive special exemption because of their office, political party, religion, caste, economic status, or social influence.
13. Every Public Official Should Ask Themselves
Have I used my office to serve the public?
Have I ignored a citizen’s complaint simply because that person lacked influence?
Have I respected the rights of peaceful protesters?
Have I treated public money as a trust belonging to the people?
Have I ensured that officials working under me act in accordance with the law?
Have I acknowledged and corrected my mistakes when they came to light?
Have I placed political or personal loyalty above the Constitution?
If an official must answer these questions before their own conscience, they should remember not the power of their position, but the responsibility that comes with public office.
A sense of accountability does not arise from speeches alone. It arises when individuals confront their actions in light of evidence, the law, and the experiences of those affected. However, the power to declare someone guilty and impose punishment must be exercised only through due legal process.
We demand accountability, not revenge. We seek to make institutions more trustworthy and answerable to the people, not to weaken them.
Final Message: The People of India Must Receive Their Full Constitutional Dignity
India’s democracy is greater than any single election, any single Prime Minister, or any single political party.
Governments may change. Political majorities may shift. New people may occupy public offices. But the fundament
