‘DISSENT IS A RIGHT, BUT ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE’: 44 HARVARD-AFFILIATED SIGNATORIES WARN AGAINST EROSION OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL TRUST

October 14, 2026

A group of 44 scholars and professionals associated with Harvard University has expressed serious concern over what it described as an increasingly hostile public campaign against India’s constitutional institutions, including the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, the office of the Chief Justice of India and Parliament. In a statement issued on Wednesday, the signatories warned that unsubstantiated accusations against constitutional authorities could undermine public confidence in the institutions upon which India’s democratic system depends.

The statement, titled Constitutional Responsibility, Rule of Law, and Institutional Integrity, was signed by individuals from diverse professional backgrounds, including lawyers, policymakers, civil servants, scientists and academics. Describing themselves as concerned citizens of the world’s oldest and largest democracy, they called for greater responsibility in public discourse and cautioned against rhetoric that could erode the credibility of constitutional institutions.

The signatories expressed particular concern about language portraying India as being under “siege” and describing constitutional authorities as “thieves” or “compromised”. They argued that such characterisations, when unsupported by adequate evidence, risk weakening public trust in institutions responsible for upholding democratic governance.

Their intervention comes amid an intensifying political controversy over the Election Commission’s functioning, particularly the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. Opposition parties and protest organisers have questioned aspects of the revision exercise and alleged that eligible voters could be unfairly excluded. The allegations remain contested, while the Election Commission and the BJP have rejected claims of deliberate electoral manipulation.

The statement’s central argument was that democratic dissent and institutional accountability must be protected without allowing accusations to substitute for evidence. The signatories acknowledged that criticism of public institutions is a legitimate part of democracy, but maintained that allegations against constitutional authorities should be substantiated and pursued through appropriate legal and institutional mechanisms.

“Dissent is a democratic right, but undermining institutional credibility through unsubstantiated accusations is not,” the statement said, emphasising that the signatories had issued their appeal out of a sense of responsibility towards India’s democratic institutions.

The group also raised concerns about reports that Harvard University’s name had been invoked to lend credibility to a political campaign without appropriate authorisation. The signatories indicated that the use of the university’s reputation in this manner was troubling, particularly if it created the impression of institutional endorsement where none had been authorised.

The statement did not suggest that criticism of the government or its institutions should be prohibited. Instead, it drew a distinction between legitimate disagreement and rhetoric that, in the signatories’ view, could damage institutional credibility without providing sufficient evidence for the claims being made.

The signatories further addressed the role of law-enforcement agencies during demonstrations. They said police actions intended to maintain public order deserved fair scrutiny, recognising that allegations of excessive force or unlawful detention should be examined rather than dismissed. At the same time, they argued that sweeping accusations and abusive language could not replace evidence, due process or institutional accountability.

This position places the protection of civil liberties alongside respect for constitutional institutions. The statement stressed that public officials and the offices they occupy should be treated with appropriate dignity, while insisting that constitutional principles, the rule of law and individual freedoms must be respected consistently, rather than selectively according to political convenience.

Among those named as signatories were Rajat Sethi, A. K. Raghawan, Abhigyan Satyam, Abhishek M., Adhitya Srinivasan, Aditya Kulshreshtha, Akash Sabarwal, Udaya Birje Raghunath, Priyambada Mishra, Sujeet Kumar, Richa Arya and Rashmini Koparkar.

The statement comes against the backdrop of a wider dispute over the handling of anti-SIR demonstrations in Delhi. Police restrictions, preventive detentions and the treatment of journalists covering the protests have attracted criticism from opposition parties and civil society organisations. Authorities have defended their actions on public-order grounds, while critics have questioned whether the measures were proportionate and consistent with the right to peaceful assembly.

The signatories’ intervention therefore addresses two connected but distinct concerns: the need to protect constitutional institutions from unsupported allegations and the need to ensure that public authorities exercise their powers lawfully and accountably. Their statement does not resolve the factual disputes surrounding the protests or electoral-roll revision, nor does it constitute an official endorsement by Harvard University itself. It presents the signatories’ own position on responsible democratic discourse and institutional integrity.

The broader message is that democratic trust depends on more than the formal existence of institutions. It requires credible procedures, evidence-based criticism, meaningful accountability and respect for constitutional safeguards. Institutions must remain open to scrutiny, and allegations of misconduct must be capable of investigation; equally, public criticism should not treat accusations as established facts before the evidence has been examined.

As the political dispute over the Election Commission and the Supreme Court continues, the statement calls for a more responsible approach to public debate. Its signatories argue that democratic disagreement is indispensable, but that the credibility of constitutional institutions should be challenged through evidence, due process and accountability rather than language that risks deepening public distrust.