Interpreting the law

Abraham Lincoln’s famous warning still rings true: ‘you can fool some people all the time, or all people some time, but not all people all the time’. In India today, that last category appears less theoretical. As the Modi government begins its third term, a deeper concern is emerging- not simply that humungous scandals occur, but that accountability has moved in only one direction. When wrongdoing involves those close to power, the machinery is on idle. But when the accused are in the opposition, it moves full throttle with unusual speed and force. No ruling party minister or chief minister hasbeen dropped for alleged scams or charge sheeted. That is the situation that people face today. A government that claims to stand for good governance cannot afford to be seen applying one standard to its own allies and another to its critics. Citizens do not expect perfection from leaders. They do, however, expect fairness, responsibility, and the basic principle that the rules apply equally to everyone. They expect that public contracts go to the most deserving, not always to the same corporate name. They expect that failure brings consequences, not silence. The NEET scandal brought this problem into sharp focus. Millions of students, many from modest families, prepared for months and even years for a single exam that could determine their future. When the paper leak surfaced, it was not a minor administrative lapse. For many young people, it felt like their dreams had been taken away. The emotional toll was severe, and reports of extreme distress, including suicides, showed how devastating the breach of trust had become. Yet the government’s response only deepened public anger. Instead of a clear acceptance of responsibility, there were technical explanations, inquiries, and a reluctance from the top to speak directly to the crisis. The education minister appeared more like an observer than the official accountable for the system. Students and parents, seeking answers, were met too often with delay and distance. The state seemed quicker to deploy police and barricades than to open a genuine conversation. Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s fast-unto-death was a plea for attention to the NEET scam and other urgent public issues. When his health worsened, police forcibly removed him to a hospital, saying they were acting on court directions and medical advice. However, the truth is that the court had only ordered that Sonam be monitored and not hospitalised. This has raised questions about how the law was interpreted in practice. Whatever one’s view of the protest itself, the larger point is difficult to miss: those who challenge authority are often met with pressure, force, and narrow readings of legality. If India is to retain faith in its democratic promise, that logic must be reversed. Ministers must answer for failures instead of hiding behind procedure. Students deserve honesty, not slogans. Protesters deserve to be heard, not hurried out of sight. And every large decision-from examinations to contracts-must be open enough to withstand scrutiny. Strength is not measured by the ability to silence criticism. It is measured by the willingness to be accountable and correct course. A government confident in its integrity does not fear accountability; instead, it welcomes it. What India needs now is not louder control, but equal rules. That is the test the government must still pass.