Site Title

Sidheswar Jena
PhD Scholar in Law

Abstract

The Indian tax system, characterized by its federal structure and evolving reforms, incorporates stringent penalty provisions to deter non-compliance and evasion. This paper examines the system’s key components, analyzes the penalty mechanisms under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, and critiques their contradictions with effective tax collection strategies. It further evaluates the constitutional validity of these provisions, highlighting judicial challenges and their alignment with fundamental rights. Drawing on recent data and case law as of 2025, the study argues that while penalties enhance revenue mobilization, their disproportionate application undermines equity, fosters litigation, and raises questions of constitutional propriety. Recommendations for reform emphasize proportionality, intent-based assessments, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms to balance deterrence with taxpayer rights.

Introduction

India’s tax framework operates within a federal paradigm, mandating that taxes be levied only by authority of law. Direct taxes, primarily income tax, are governed by the Income Tax Act, 1961, under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), while indirect taxes have been streamlined through the GST regime since 2017, administered by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The system’s objectives include revenue generation, economic equity, and compliance promotion, with digital initiatives like faceless assessments marking recent advancements.

Penalty provisions serve as critical tools for enforcement, imposing civil and criminal sanctions to curb evasion. However, their implementation reveals contradictions: while aimed at boosting collections, they often result in burdensome litigation and disproportionate impacts on small taxpayers. This paper critically examines these aspects, juxtaposing them against tax collection efficacy and constitutional benchmarks, using updated data as of 2025.

Overview of the Indian Tax System

The Indian tax system bifurcates into direct and indirect levies, with the central government empowered over income tax and GST. Direct taxes, including personal and corporate income tax, contributed significantly to fiscal revenues, with gross direct tax collections reaching ₹27.02 lakh crore in FY 2024-25 (provisional figures). The GST, a destination-based tax unifying erstwhile levies like VAT and excise, recorded gross collections of ₹22.08 lakh crore in the same period, reflecting a 9.4% year-on-year growth.

Reforms such as the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and amnesty provisions under GST aim to reduce disputes and encourage voluntary compliance. Nonetheless, challenges persist, including complex compliance for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and regional disparities in enforcement.

Penalty Provisions in the Indian Tax System

Penalties in the Indian tax regime are multifaceted, encompassing monetary fines, interest, and prosecution, designed to deter violations while facilitating revenue recovery.

Under the Income Tax Act, 1961

• Under-reporting and Misreporting (Section 270A): Imposes 50% of evaded tax for under-reporting and 200% for misreporting, replacing older concealment penalties since 2017.
• Concealment of Income (Section 271(1)(c)): Ranges from 100% to 300% of tax evaded for inaccurate particulars.
• Late Filing (Section 234F): Fixed at ₹5,000 (or ₹1,000 for low-income earners).
• TDS/TCS Failures (Sections 271C, 271CA): Equivalent to 100% of undeducted tax.
• Prosecution (Section 276C): Up to 7 years imprisonment for evasion exceeding ₹25 lakh.

Appeals lie with the Commissioner (Appeals) or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

Under the GST Regime

• Late Filing (Section 47): ₹50 per day (capped at ₹5,000–₹10,000 based on turnover).
• Non-Fraudulent Evasion (Section 122): 10% of tax due or ₹10,000, whichever is higher.
• Fraudulent Evasion (Section 74): 100% penalty plus 18% interest.
• General Penalty (Section 125): Up to ₹25,000.
• Criminal Offenses (Section 132): 6 months to 5 years imprisonment for evasion over ₹5 crore.

Amendments in 2024, effective from November 2024, introduced amnesty for waiving interest and penalties in non-fraud cases for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20 if taxes are paid by specified dates.

These provisions underscore a shift toward intent-differentiated penalties, yet their stringency remains a point of contention.

Contradictions and Arguments Regarding Tax Collection

Penalty provisions enhance tax collection by deterring evasion, contributing to robust revenue growth. However, contradictions abound:

• Disproportionate Harshness vs. Compliance: High penalties for minor errors, such as 300% under Section 271, treat bona fide mistakes as willful evasion, leading to high litigation rates (e.g., 40% GST appeals). This erodes trust and contradicts simplification goals, as evidenced by amnesty schemes waiving penalties to recover dues.
• Enforcement Gaps: Low audit coverage (1-2% of returns) undermines deterrence, with evasion persisting due to low detection probabilities. Studies highlight how complex structures exacerbate this for MSMEs.
• Revenue Focus Over Equity: Penalties often exceed dues, functioning as additional revenue streams, disproportionately affecting small entities while corporates leverage rulings.
• TDS Mechanism Flaws: Collecting 40% of direct taxes, TDS causes cash-flow issues and refund backlogs, contradicting efficient collection.

These paradoxes suggest penalties inflate short-term revenues but hinder long-term compliance, advocating for AI-driven audits and graduated sanctions.

Constitutional Validity and Challenges

Penalty provisions derive legitimacy from constitutional entries enabling revenue protection, but challenges invoke Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (trade freedom), 21 (life and liberty), and 300A (property rights).

Judicial Validations

• In Sivagaminatha Moopanar v. ITO (1955), penalties were upheld as non-arbitrary under Article 14.
• Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2013) affirmed proportionality under Section 271.

Key Challenges

• Retrospective Taxation: The Vodafone case, involving retrospective amendments, violated predictability and Article 14, leading to arbitration losses and the 2021 repeal. Penalties amplified these issues, contradicting ex post facto prohibitions under Article 20(1).
• TDS Provisions: A 2024 PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay challenged TDS as violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21, but was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2025 as “very badly drafted.”
• GST Penalties: State of Kerala v. Builder’s Association (2024) mandated mens rea for fraud penalties, invalidating automatic impositions.
• Broader Issues: Reverse burden in Black Money Act challenges Article 21, with low conviction rates questioning proportionality.

Judicial scrutiny underscores the need for intent-proof and equitable application, recognizing tax planning as a potential right under Articles 21 and 300A.

Conclusion

Penalty provisions in India’s tax system are indispensable for revenue integrity but exhibit contradictions that impede efficient collection and constitutional adherence. Reforms should prioritize proportionality, technology integration, and stakeholder equity to foster a compliant ecosystem. Future research could explore empirical impacts of 2024 amendments on evasion rates.

By Sidheswar Jena, PhD-Scholar in Law

Introduction

When the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced on 1st July 2017, it was hailed as the most transformative reform in India’s tax history. It carried the grand promise of “One Nation, One Tax, One Market” — unifying a fragmented VAT–Excise–Service Tax system into a seamless framework.

Eight years later, however, GST stands at a crossroads. While its intent was noble, its implementation has been marred by loopholes, systemic misuse, and repeated amendments that have done little more than apply a band-aid to structural fractures. From fake invoicing to officer discretion, from fragile legal measures to political tinkering, GST today raises a crucial question: Is it truly a reform, or has it become another political agenda?

This article examines the legal, administrative, and constitutional cracks within the GST framework and argues for structural corrections rather than cosmetic fixes.

1. Registration Loopholes: A Weak Entry Gate

GST registration, governed under Section 25 of the CGST Act, is PAN-linked and state-specific. But here lies the flaw: cancellation of a GSTIN under Section 29 in one state does not automatically bar the same PAN from registering in another state.

Fraudulent taxpayers exploit this gap ruthlessly. A defaulter in one state resurfaces as a “new taxpayer” in another. Officers, armed with discretion but lacking accountability, often approve such registrations.

Finding: By failing to impose a nationwide bar on fraudulent PANs, the Act leaves the door wide open for misuse, while honest taxpayers get entangled in red tape.

2. Fake Billing & ITC Fraud: The Unaddressed Core

GST is fundamentally a self-declaration tax. Taxpayers claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on invoices. The law originally envisioned invoice-matching provisions (Sections 42 & 43 of the CGST Act), but they were never fully operationalized.

The result? Fake billing has become a cottage industry. Self-declaration without automated verification effectively means self-certification. Revenue integrity is left to the mercy of fraudsters.

Finding: Without technological enforcement through real-time invoice matching, ITC remains the Achilles’ heel of GST.

3. PAN & Aadhaar Blocking: A Legally Fragile Measure

Recent policy debates suggest “blocking” PAN or Aadhaar of suspected evaders. But here is the constitutional problem:

The CGST Act does not authorize such blocking; it only allows registration cancellation.

Blocking without judicial sanction violates Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade) and Article 21 (right to livelihood and due process).

Worse still, fraudsters can simply float LLPs or private companies with fresh PANs, rendering the measure futile.

Finding: This is not only unconstitutional but also practically ineffective. What looks tough on paper is hollow in practice.

4. Officer Discretion Without Accountability

GST officers wield enormous discretion over registration approvals, cancellations, and revocations. Yet, the law imposes no direct accountability on them for wrongful or negligent orders.

This lack of checks fuels corruption and harassment of genuine taxpayers. Dishonest practitioners even market their ability to secure instant approvals, often in a single day — bypassing mandatory field visits and geo-tagged verifications.

Finding: A system without accountability allows both taxpayers and officers to game the process. Self-declaration is a noble principle, but it must be supported by automated checks and officer responsibility.

5. Mid-Year Reforms: Cosmetic, Not Structural

The GST Council frequently tweaks rates and slabs mid-year. While these decisions grab headlines, they add to business uncertainty. ERP systems, contracts, and compliance frameworks are constantly disrupted, while the larger issues of enforcement and fraud remain ignored.

Finding: Cosmetic reforms may serve political optics, but they distract from systemic failures.

6. Enforcement Without Deterrence

Fraud cases make the news, but very few culminate in convictions. Penalties, when imposed, arrive late and inconsistently. Even complaints of PAN/Aadhaar misuse stagnate at the officer’s desk.

Finding: Without swift adjudication and visible punishment, enforcement is reduced to theatre. A law without deterrence is a law without teeth.

7. Refunds: A Breeding Ground for Corruption

GST refunds, particularly for exporters and high-credit taxpayers, have become a fertile ground for delays, interference, and corruption. Honest taxpayers are left frustrated, while dishonest ones exploit the system through collusion.

An automated, timeline-bound refund mechanism is the only cure.

8. Account Freezing & Compliance Gaps

Account freezing, return mismatches, and auto-restrictions like blocking GSTR-2B/3B data are being used as ad-hoc measures. Courts have repeatedly reminded the department not to indulge in arbitrary practices.

But a half-baked MIS system cannot replace a robust, data-driven compliance structure.

9. ITC Misuse at Scale: The Multiplier Effect

Consider a taxpayer with a turnover of ₹100 crore. By fabricating ₹50 crore worth of invoices, they can siphon off ₹9 crore in fake ITC (at 18%). Multiply this by just 100 taxpayers and the loss escalates to ₹900 crore. With 1.5 crore registered taxpayers, the scale of potential fraud is staggering.

Finding: Even “small” fraud percentages translate into mammoth losses at the macro level. Prevention is not optional; it is imperative.

Recommendations

For GST to evolve from a political slogan into a real reform, the following structural corrections are essential:

Nationwide PAN Bar: Fraudulent PANs must be debarred across all states, subject only to tribunal clearance.

Automated ITC Verification: Real-time AI-driven invoice matching must be operationalized.

Judicial Safeguards for Identity Blocking: PAN/Aadhaar restrictions, if any, must be sanctioned by fast-track courts, not imposed administratively.

Officer Accountability: Wrongful or negligent orders by officers should invite disciplinary action.

Visible Deterrence: Habitual offenders should face permanent blacklisting and expedited trials.

Predictable Tax Calendar: Reforms must align with the financial year to reduce business disruption.

Refund Automation: Eliminate human discretion to curb corruption in refunds.

Conclusion

GST was meant to unify India’s market and simplify taxation. But eight years later, it finds itself entangled in its own contradictions. Rate rationalisation continues to dominate political debate, while the real issues of enforcement, accountability, and constitutional balance remain neglected.

If reforms remain cosmetic, GST will remain a law of ambition rather than a law of integrity.

⚖ True reform is not about cutting rates or tinkering with slabs. It is about building a system that is legally robust, technologically sound, and corruption-resistant.

Only then can GST live up to its promise of “One Nation, One Tax, One Market.”

By Sidheswar Jena, PhD (Law) Scholar
Humanity is the only true temple of God.

Human beings have always searched for their origin. Science tells us we are recent arrivals on Earth, yet religion tells us that God created us. If that is true, then who is God — and why is He divided among so many names?

Every major faith shares the same wisdom. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam says the world is one family. Christianity teaches: Love your neighbour. Islam reminds us: if your neighbour sleeps hungry, you cannot enter heaven. The core message is one — human happiness and compassion.

Yet, paradoxically, religions have been the seed of wars, hatred, and division. Gaza bleeds, sects clash, and humanity suffers — all in the name of God who, by all accounts, asks us to love.

Even rituals reveal contradictions. Priests and pandits say that the dead still depend on us for food or offerings. But if heaven exists, how can it need earthly supplies? If souls are free, why should they rely on rituals? If priests can deliver goods to the afterlife, then who empowered them?

These contradictions push us toward a truth: God is not divided. Humans are. And until we learn to see humanity as the highest religion, our search for God will remain incomplete.

By Sidheswar Jena, PhD Scholar – Law

Happiness is more than material comfort or free government schemes. It is about dignity, freedom, and the ability to question those in power. In India today, the big question is: are Indians truly happy, or are they surviving in silence under polarisation, freebies, and crony capitalism?

Polarisation and Division

India’s diversity has always been its strength, but politics has turned it into division. Religion and identity are now tools to win votes. Instead of solving unemployment or poverty, leaders invest in polarisation. This weakens democracy, because a divided society rarely questions its rulers.

Institutions Under Pressure

Strong democracies depend on independent institutions. In India, however, many appear subdued. The Supreme Court recently struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme, noting how it created opaque political funding. Yet, years of such practices have already damaged public trust. When institutions hesitate to act, citizens lose faith in democracy itself.

Crony Capitalism

India’s wealth is increasingly concentrated in a few corporate houses. According to Oxfam, the top 10% hold 77% of national wealth. Key infrastructure—from airports to power—has shifted into private monopolies. This is not inclusive development but crony capitalism, where politics and business serve each other while ordinary citizens are left behind.

Citizens Silenced

In every society, change begins with citizens. But in India, ordinary voices are weakening.

Demonetisation (2016): RBI data later confirmed 99.3% of banned notes returned to banks, undermining its black-money goal, while millions of small traders suffered.

GST (2017): Promoted as reform, it crushed small businesses with compliance burdens. India’s unorganised sector—once employing nearly 90% of workers—has shrunk drastically.

When small businesses and independent workers are destroyed, society becomes dependent and silent.

The Freebie Economy

One of the most concerning changes is dependency on state handouts. Nearly 80 crore Indians—more than half the population—now rely on free ration under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana. In the early 2010s, such schemes covered about 25 crore people. This rise shows how politics is moving people from empowerment to dependency. When survival depends on government schemes, questioning power becomes risky.

Contradictions in Governance

While billions are spent on publicity and political image-building, GST is still levied on educational materials, and history chapters are being deleted from school textbooks. These priorities do not strengthen citizens; they only strengthen political branding.

Conclusion

So, are Indians happy? On paper, many appear content—roads are built, ration is given, corporate wealth grows. But happiness also means freedom to speak, question, and dream. Today, silence seems louder than joy.

Democracy does not end in a single day. It weakens slowly—through polarisation, captured institutions, crony capitalism, and dependency on freebies. If India is to protect its future, it must give power back to citizens. Only when people can speak without fear will true happiness return..

By Sidheswar Jena, PhD Scholar – Law

We live in a society where the worth of a human being is often mistaken for the weight of their wallet or the brand of their attire. Dignity is measured not by values but by appearances, not by contribution but by display. And in this pursuit of shallow symbols, we continue to overlook what truly matters.

Recently, during a client visit, I stayed at a five-star hotel where I met a businessman whose story revealed this stark reality. He is the chairman of a company with over 200 employees and offices in India and Dubai. For two decades, he has built livelihoods, generated wealth, and created opportunities. Yet, because he dresses in simple jeans and casual shirts, society refuses to take him at face value.

Hotel staff questioned him: “Sir, are you really the owner of such a big company? You don’t look like one.” The reason? He didn’t wear a luxury suit, didn’t carry an air of stress, and always had a smile. In their eyes, success had to look like arrogance, branded clothes, and a restless face.

This is not just his story—it is the story of today’s society. We no longer value simplicity or humility. Instead, we worship showmanship. If you don’t display power, people assume you don’t have it. If you don’t “look rich,” your achievements are discounted.

But here lies the contradiction:

Perception says worth is in appearance.

Reality proves worth lies in character, resilience, and human contribution.

The businessman’s humility and calmness are his strength. Yet society interprets them as weakness. This disconnect exposes our collective blindness: we chase symbols of success while ignoring its substance.

It is time to confront this truth. A person’s attire may make a first impression, but it must not define their value. The real measure of a human being is found in their integrity, the lives they touch, and the peace they carry within.

If society continues to value clothes over character, then we are not progressing—we are regressing into a culture of superficiality. It is high time we learn to respect people for who they are, not for what they wear.

Because in the end, the truest form of success is authenticity, not appearance.

When tradition meets modern education, a quiet conflict often begins within the human heart. This story of a newly married young woman captures that very struggle—between devotion and blind faith.

—.

The First Day

It was her first morning in her new home. The household woke early, and her mother-in-law, with affection and authority, asked her to join for a temple visit.

Though she was well-educated and grounded in scientific reasoning, she felt she could not refuse. Respect for elders and social expectation tied her hands. Helplessly, she agreed.

—

The Temple Path

As they approached the temple, her mother-in-law said, “This is not an ordinary place. Every wish of a devotee is fulfilled here. The goddess lives among us.”

The young bride listened, her mind questioning, but her lips silent.

Suddenly, she screamed. At the entrance was a stone lion.

“Mother, it will kill me!” she cried.

Her mother-in-law laughed gently. “Oh child, that is stone. It cannot harm you.”

Moments later, she screamed again at the sight of a snake idol.

“That snake will bite me!”

Her mother-in-law, half amused, half puzzled, replied, “This too is only stone. It cannot bite.”

The same happened when she saw a tiger idol. Each time, the same answer came: stone cannot harm.

—

Inside the Sanctum

At last, they reached the sanctum. The priest performed rituals before the stone goddess, covered in flowers and sindoor. Her mother-in-law urged, “Bow down here. Pray sincerely. The goddess will bless your new life.”

The girl bent down—but at her mother-in-law’s feet.

Shocked, the elder woman asked, “What are you doing? This is not right.”

With folded hands, the young bride replied softly:
“Mother, when the stone lion cannot kill me, when the stone snake cannot bite me, and when the stone tiger cannot save me—how can another stone idol grant me blessings? But you are alive. You understand me, guide me, and care for me. It is from you I seek blessings, not from lifeless stone.”

—

A Moment of Realization

Silence filled the temple. The mother-in-law’s heart trembled between faith and reason. Slowly, she embraced her daughter-in-law, realizing her words came from sincerity, not disrespect.

From that day, their bond deepened—not because of shared rituals, but because of mutual respect. Faith and reason found balance in human understanding.

—

Reflection

This story is not a call to reject faith, nor to mock traditions. It is a gentle reminder that devotion should not blind us. True blessings do not flow from stone, but from love, compassion, and humanity.

—

✍️ By Sidheswar Jena, PhD Scholar – Law
This story is narrated from my recent visit to a ritual site of one of my clients. During the visit, I observed thousands of devotees bowing before idols—most of them daily wage earners, separated from their families for years, some trapped in addictions, yet their faith in God remained unshaken. I even encountered a man praying for relief in his GST case. These human experiences, where belief and struggle intertwine, inspired me to narrate this story and reflect on the thin line between devotion and blindness.

Researched by Sidheswar Jena, Ph.D. (Law) Scholar

‐–‐——–

Abstract

This paper examines the intersection of professional autonomy and political authority through two case studies: a hospital incident in the United Kingdom in 2011 and a suspension order against a doctor in India in 2025. By analyzing these events in the light of constitutional principles, case law, and existing scholarship, the paper argues that the strength of a democracy lies not only in its electoral processes but also in the resilience of its institutions. The comparison reveals the divergence between mature democracies, where institutional autonomy is respected, and developing democracies, where executive authority often prevails over professional independence.

Keywords: Professional Autonomy, Political Authority, Rule of Law, Natural Justice, Democracy, Comparative Constitutional Law

I. Introduction

Democracy is more than a system of elections; it is the practice of fairness, accountability, and institutional respect in everyday governance. Institutions such as hospitals, universities, and courts often become spaces where the boundaries of political authority and professional autonomy are tested.

Two incidents—one in the United Kingdom in 2011 and another in India in 2025—offer a lens to study this dynamic. While both involved doctors and political leaders, the differing responses illuminate broader questions of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the maturity of democratic institutions.

—————–

II. Literature Review

Scholars have long debated the relationship between executive authority and institutional autonomy.

A.V. Dicey’s classic exposition of the rule of law emphasized equality before the law, underscoring that political leaders should not enjoy privileges above ordinary citizens.¹ H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth similarly argue that the rule of law depends upon curbing arbitrary power and enforcing procedural safeguards.²

Indian constitutional commentators, such as M.P. Jain and Upendra Baxi, have highlighted how executive dominance has historically strained the autonomy of institutions, particularly in moments of political expediency.³ Comparative constitutional scholarship suggests that mature democracies internalize checks and balances into everyday institutional life, while developing democracies often exhibit patterns of “executive centralism.”⁴

Existing studies on medical professionalism and politics also emphasize that safeguarding professional independence is essential not only for institutional credibility but also for protecting fundamental rights such as dignity and health.⁵

—

III. Legal and Theoretical Framework

A. Professional Autonomy and Democracy

Professional autonomy refers to the ability of individuals within specialized fields—such as medicine, law, or academia—to perform their duties without undue interference. In democratic theory, this autonomy safeguards expertise and ensures that decision-making is based on professional standards rather than political expediency.

B. The Rule of Law and Natural Justice

The rule of law demands that all authority, including the executive, is subject to established procedures and norms. Arbitrary state action undermines democracy. In India, the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu held that arbitrariness and equality are antithetical.⁶ Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court expanded Article 21 to require fairness, non-arbitrariness, and due process in all state actions.⁷

The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem (“hear the other side”), were articulated in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, establishing that administrative actions must respect fairness and impartiality.

IV. Case Studies

A. The United Kingdom, 2011

In 2011, during a hospital visit in London, political leaders entered a patient ward accompanied by media crews. A senior doctor interrupted the visit, citing breaches of infection-control protocols.⁹ No disciplinary action was taken against the doctor.

This incident reflected a constitutional culture where professional norms are upheld against political symbolism. It also demonstrated the embeddedness of institutional autonomy in the everyday practices of a mature democracy.

B. India, 2025

In 2025, at a state-run hospital in India, a minister publicly ordered the suspension of a senior doctor after a complaint alleging refusal to administer an injection in the casualty ward. The suspension was immediate, public, and without inquiry.¹⁰

This raised significant constitutional concerns. By bypassing established disciplinary procedures, the suspension appeared to violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted in Royappa and Maneka Gandhi. The lack of a hearing before suspension contravened the principles of natural justice affirmed in Kraipak.

—

V. Comparative Analysis

The two cases illustrate distinct democratic trajectories:

In the UK, professional independence prevailed. The doctor could assert institutional norms against political leaders without retaliation, reinforcing public trust in democratic institutions.

In India, executive authority prevailed. The doctor’s suspension, ordered without inquiry, exemplified how political influence can overshadow due process, weakening institutional credibility.

The contrast highlights a broader issue: in mature democracies, checks and balances are internalized within everyday institutional practices, whereas in developing democracies, executive dominance often overrides professional autonomy.

—

VI. Conclusion

Development cannot be assessed solely in terms of GDP or infrastructure. It must also be evaluated by the strength of institutions and the dignity of professionals who operate within them.

The UK incident of 2011 reflects the resilience of institutions, where professional standards prevailed over political presence. The Indian incident of 2025 reveals the fragility of institutional autonomy when confronted by executive authority.

For India, the lesson is clear: constitutional principles—rule of law, non-arbitrariness, and natural justice—must guide not only legislative or judicial actions but also everyday administrative practice. A truly developed democracy is one where power bows before professionalism, ensuring that institutions, not individuals, define the nation’s dignity.

—

Footnotes

1. A.V. DICEY, INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 193–95 (10th ed. 1959).

2. H.W.R. WADE & C.F. FORSYTH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 16–20 (11th ed. 2014).

3. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 102–07 (8th ed. 2018); UPENDRA BAXI, THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT AND POLITICS 56–62 (1980).

4. See Bruce Ackerman, The New Separation of Powers, 113 HARV. L. REV. 633, 640–45 (2000).

5. DANIEL SPERLING, MEDICAL LAW AND ETHICS 85–90 (2007).

6. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 S.C.C. 3.

7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248.

8. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 S.C.C. 262.

9. Laura Donnelly, Leading Surgeon Interrupts Hospital Visit of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, TELEGRAPH (June 9, 2011), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8566637/Leading-surgeon-interrupts-hospital-visit-of-Prime-Minister-and-Deputy-Prime-Minister.html.

10. Express News Service, Minister Orders Suspension of Doctor at State Hospital, INDIAN EXPRESS (June 4, 2025), https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-minister-orders-suspension-doctor-2025.