It is said that often truth is the first casualty of war. This is increasingly becoming true of political contests as well, where post-truth politics is emerging as an important dimension of public discourse.
In the post-truth scenario, false propaganda, distorted narratives, and emotional appeals devoid of logic often take precedence over objective facts and verifiable evidence. And, reasoned debate gives way to demagoguery.
Once largely a subject of academic debates, post-truth has now become a feature of everyday politics. Misinformation campaigns designed to gaslight are increasingly used to not only sway public opinion but also discredit democratic institutions.
Allegations are repeated and amplified even when the evidence to substantiate them is conspicuously absent. In this, truth seems to be not merely the first casualty, but it risks becoming the final casualty as well.
India’s political discourse is not immune to this post-truth phenomenon. Increasingly, sections of the opposition parties appear to be manufacturing outrage, peddling propaganda and weaponising misinformation to spread anarchy, placing avaricious political goals above national interests.
The article does not aim a jeremiad against the opposition nor a claim that constitutional institutions are beyond criticism. Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. What it is not is a licence to peddle falsehoods. Disagreement is necessary for better policymaking. What it is not is a pass for vindictive and sustained assault on public trust through allegations that crumble under factual scrutiny.
The purpose, therefore, is to challenge these falsehoods and restore public trust in constitutional institutions, which has been eroded by the cynical politics of manufactured distrust.
This becomes particularly significant when we examine how electoral institutions and processes have been attacked by certain sections of opposition to hide the fact that people are rejecting them again and again.
Three issues, in particular, stand out: the recurring allegations of manipulation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and unscrupulous attempts to discredit the Election Commission of India (ECI).
First things first, EVMs have repeatedly been subjected to allegations of manipulation by the opposition. The Supreme Court has examined such challenges on multiple occasions. Finally, in 2024, in its ‘Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India’, the Supreme Court put to rest all doubts and rejected demands for a return to paper ballots. The Supreme Court observed that repeated challenges based on suspicion and doubt, without cogent material or data, were “execrable and undesirable”. But this could not stop the opposition from repeating the same lies again and again.
The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is another example of how a legally right and administratively justified exercise has been impugned for narrow political interests by some in this post-truth era.
In 2025, the Supreme Court in its ‘Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India’ judgment, affirmed that the integrity of electoral rolls is foundational to free and fair elections. It described the objective of ensuring the “accuracy, completeness, and integrity of the electoral roll” as “not only legitimate but is integral to the constitutional mandate” entrusted to the Commission.
The Court also found that the reasons advanced for the revision bore a “direct and rational nexus” to maintaining a credible electoral process. These observations reinforced a fundamental principle: protecting the right to vote requires not only safeguarding every eligible voter, but also ensuring that electoral rolls remain accurate, complete and reliable.
Beyond EVMs and SIR, a sustained campaign has been run to discredit the office of the Chief Election Commissioner, and by extension the institution of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
For nearly seven decades, Congress governments retained executive control over the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner. Our government changed this by institutionalising the appointment process through a multi-member Selection Committee that includes the Leader of the Opposition.
The record of Congress has been far from inspiring when it comes to respecting the independence of other constitutional institutions as well.
In 1951, the then government introduced the First Constitutional Amendment to reverse Supreme Court judgment and curtailed freedom of speech and expression.
During the Emergency, constitutional amendments were weaponised to serve the interests of the government. The amendments made the proclamation of Emergency non-justiciable and placed the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny. It also granted sweeping immunity to high constitutional functionaries and curtailed judicial review. The amendment power was turned from an instrument of constitutional reform into a tool for executive aggrandisement.
Not only institutions were trampled but human rights of citizens were also violated. Attorney General Niren De, representing the then Union Government, argued in the Supreme Court that even if an innocent person was killed by a police officer acting out of personal enmity, the victim’s family could not seek judicial relief.
Now, compare this with how the Constitution has been honoured in the last 12 years under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, passed by a special majority of Parliament, was struck down by the Supreme Court. The verdict was not only respected, but no attempt was made to overturn it through backdoor legislation. This respect for the Constitution and its principles has also guided our approach to some of the most consequential issues facing the nation.
The construction of the Ram Mandir began only after the Supreme Court’s judgment. When Article 370 was abrogated and the Supreme Court upheld the decision, many in the opposition still disagreed with the judgment.
Even legislative processes and offices have not been spared by the Congress. A no-confidence motion was moved against the Lok Sabha Speaker when he simply asked the Leader of opposition to follow the rules.
Post-truth politics has also extended to matters of national security. In 2019, the Congress leader wrongly attributed a slogan to the Supreme Court’s Rafale judgment and later tendered an unconditional apology in contempt proceedings. In August 2025, the Supreme Court again questioned the basis of claims made by Rahul Gandhi regarding the occupation of Indian territory, asking what credible evidence supported them.
Respecting differences of opinion has always been an integral part of our democratic ethos. When people raised concerns over the three farm laws passed by Parliament, we not only listened to those concerns but also repealed the laws in the larger public interest.
In a democracy, one is free to disagree with a decision. But such disagreements cannot be founded on falsehoods, nor can their purpose be to create disorder and anarchy. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, in his famous speech in the Constituent Assembly, often referred to as the “Grammar of Anarchy,” warned against the dangers of resorting to unconstitutional methods.
His message remains profoundly relevant today. Opposition leaders would do well to read this historic speech and understand the crucial distinction between dissent and anarchy in a democracy.
We believe that the foundation of a vibrant democracy lies not merely in political equality, but also in economic and social justice. This principle underpins the decisions taken by our government.
At the same time, for a stable and mature democracy it is important that dissent and concerns be expressed through legitimate and democratic channels, and resolved through dialogue and mutual understanding rather than by resorting to disorder.
The need of the hour is to ensure that neither our democratic institutions nor India’s rise are held hostage to the frustration arising from political defeats. And, at no cost will the nation’s progress be allowed to be undermined by those who would rather discredit the system than confront the reasons for their own setbacks.
Courtesy PIB Srinagar
Rajnath Singh is the Minister of Defence, Government of India.