Legal Experts and Pro-Democracy Activists Amplify Calls for Regime Change in India Following Twelve Years of Modi Administration

Advocate Prashant Bhushan has asserted that seeking regime change is a constitutional right rather than an offense, defending calls for political transition after twelve years under the Modi administration. Inspired by Bangladesh’s successful student-led July Uprising that ousted Sheikh Hasina, Indian pro-democracy activists are mounting an explicit campaign against governance failures. These demands are reinforced by the September 2026 RMN Democracy Monitor report, which classifies India as a Managed Democracy with a score of 3 out of 10.

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | October 15, 2026

1. Legal and Constitutional Justifications for Regime Change

The protection of robust political discourse and the exercise of constitutional rights form the operational bedrock of any democratic framework. When public dissent faces institutional pushback, legal protections serve as a critical defense for citizens challenging state authority. In democratic systems, political transitions and demands for administrative reform are inherent components of civic participation rather than threats to national stability.

On Thursday, October 15, Advocate Prashant Bhushan explicitly defended public calls for a change in government, openly declaring, “We want regime change.” Asserting that seeking a political transition is not an offense in a democratic nation like India, Bhushan framed it as a citizen’s fundamental constitutional right. Daring Home Minister Amit Shah, Bhushan criticized the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for operating under glaring double standards. He emphasized that the BJP itself had routinely organized mass protests demanding changes in government when positioned in the political opposition.

Pro-democracy activists are leveraging these legal arguments to frame their ongoing campaign as an explicit, unambiguous project. While the country’s 1.4 billion citizens have endured twelve years under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration—a timeline where observers note such organized calls should have emerged a decade ago—activists are now directly confronting the ruling establishment without reservation.

This domestic assertion of constitutional rights directly intersects with broader regional dynamics, where youth-led student movements across South Asia have successfully challenged autocratic governance structures.

2. Cross-Border Dynamics: The Impact of Student-Led Uprisings

Across South Asia, student-led political agitations have increasingly re-energized democratic movements, demonstrating the capacity of youth mobilization to disrupt entrenched political power structures. The contagion effect of regional protest movements provides both operational templates and ideological momentum for neighboring civic groups challenging autocratic practices.

Student leader Neha Bora, who is at the forefront of ongoing protests targeting the Modi administration and flawed electoral processes in India, highlighted that the current Gen Z movement in India initially drew inspiration from events in Bangladesh. The regime change in Bangladesh was catalyzed by the student-led “July Uprising” spanning June to August 2024. This wave of mass agitation effectively dismantled Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year authoritarian rule, culminating in her formal resignation and flight to India on August 5, 2024.

Timeline of the Bangladesh "July Uprising" and Legal Aftermath
├── June–August 2024: Student-led agitation mobilizes against Sheikh Hasina's 15-year rule.
├── August 5, 2024: Sheikh Hasina resigns as Prime Minister and flees to India.
└── November 2025: ICT-BD sentences Hasina to death for crimes against humanity.

Following the collapse of the Hasina administration, formal judicial accountability measures culminated in late 2025. In November 2025, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) found Sheikh Hasina guilty of crimes against humanity committed during the 2024 student protests and sentenced her to death. The tribunal’s verdict was celebrated across Bangladesh and resonated deeply among pro-democracy groups throughout South Asia, demonstrating that long-standing executive overreach can ultimately face legal reckoning.

This regional precedent of student-driven executive accountability has energized mainstream political leaders in India, who are increasingly sharpening their rhetoric to target top-level governance failures.

3. Opposition Rhetoric and the Twelve-Year Misrule Narrative

Parliamentary opposition leaders and investigative journalists play a structural role in scrutinizing executive power and documenting political misgovernance. By articulating systemic grievances, opposition figures seek to translate public dissatisfaction into direct political pressure against state authorities.

Congress leader and Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly escalated his public declarations against the ruling establishment. Gandhi explicitly declared that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, among a slew of others, are “the villains in India” who “will be punished.” While Gandhi has not formally advocated for a specialized tribunal within India, his sharp framing reflects an insistence on executive accountability for democratic backsliding.

This political critique is anchored in the socio-economic conditions facing India’s 1.4 billion residents after twelve years under the Modi regime. Pro-democracy groups and opposition leaders highlight four core pillars of systemic misrule:

• Unprecedented Corruption: Persistent structural dishonesty diverting public resources into favored hands.
• High Unemployment: Escalating joblessness impacting millions of educated young citizens.
• Widespread Lawlessness: The erosion of basic legal protections and administrative neutrality across state institutions.
• Severe Inflation: Soaring living costs placing extreme economic burdens on ordinary households.

To systematically track these institutional failures, RMN News maintains a dedicated editorial hub titled “Narendra Modi: Twelve Years of Misrule and the Illusion of Growth?“, providing continuous analysis of executive missteps and governance decay.

While opposition rhetoric articulates these systemic grievances, empirical evaluations offer an objective measure of the structural decline within Indian democratic institutions.

4. Empirical Evaluation: RMN Democracy Monitor Findings

Empirical metrics and systematic indicators are vital tools for evaluating the actual operational health of democratic institutions beyond official rhetoric. Independent evaluations allow observers to distinguish between functional democratic processes and nominal constitutional facades.

The RMN Democracy Monitor’s “State of Indian Democracy“ report, published in September 2026, provides an objective baseline assessing the country’s political landscape. Classifying India as a “Managed Democracy” with an overall score of 3 out of 10, the monitor serves as a damning indictment of current governance structures. The evaluation is rigorously calculated across 10 distinct parameters, which highlight comprehensive systemic failures concentrated across five primary domains.

Key Evaluation Parameters: RMN Democracy Monitor (September 2026)

Parameter Focus	Structural Assessment
Election Integrity and Transparency	Critical vulnerabilities; widespread public “nervousness” regarding electoral manipulation and process fairness.
Judicial Independence	Systemic erosion preventing neutral legal checks on executive overreach and state power.
Media Freedom and Information Control	Heavily restricted information flows, state pressures, and widespread media manipulation.
Institutional Accountability and Governance	Chronic failure of oversight bodies to hold high-level executive authorities accountable.
Civic Freedoms and Religious Animosity	Escalating restrictions on peaceful dissent and state-tolerated social friction.

 

The “Managed Democracy” designation confirms a profound disconnect between democratic appearance and institutional reality. While the formal facade of regular elections and constitutional bodies persists, the system no longer facilitates genuine political competition or institutional checks and balances.

Despite widespread public anxiety surrounding electoral integrity and clear empirical data documenting decay, mainstream opposition parties have struggled to convert these findings into sustained mass mobilization. In a managed democracy, state control over institutional channels, media narratives, and civic spaces restricts opposition outreach, hindering the conversion of public discontent into organized street power. Nevertheless, pro-democracy activists remain firm in their resolve to challenge autocratic governance and demand fundamental regime change.

By Rakesh Raman, who is a national award-winning journalist and social activist. He is the founder of the humanitarian organization RMN Foundation which is working in diverse areas to help the disadvantaged and distressed people in the society.