Bangladesh’s Awami League Ban: Constitutional Feasibility of Banning Political Parties in India    

At the beginning of May 2025, the interim government of Bangladesh, which was led by Muhammad Yunus, who had previously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, issued an order under the Anti-Terrorism Act to call for the suspension of all operations of the Awami League until the conclusion of special tribunal proceedings against its leaders.

The decision was met with quick and severe criticism from both local opposition and international observers, including the government of India, who voiced concerns regarding the lack of due process and the reduction of political space in a democracy that is located nearby.

In order to protect national security and establish accountability for alleged violent crackdowns, proponents of the prohibition believe that it is necessary to implement the prohibited measure. In response, critics argue that a blanket restriction on a major political party violates core democratic norms and runs the risk of setting a hazardous precedent for arbitrary governmental action through the establishment of a precedent.

A Look at the Bangladeshi Experience Regarding Political Party Bans

Bangladesh’s decision to prohibit the Awami League must be analyzed in the context of the widespread demonstrations that led to the removal of Sheikh Hasina, the country’s long-standing leader, in the latter half of the year 2024.

The culmination of widespread protests against employment quotas and allegations of voting fraud was a series of riots that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people.

In response, an interim government that was given the authority to make changes quickly altered anti-terror laws to target groups who were considered to be a threat to public order.

Organizations that are accused of encouraging violence may be prohibited from engaging in public activities, including those that take place in digital environments, according to the modified statutes. Nevertheless, the all-encompassing scope of these prohibitions, which include campaign rallies, social media posts, and even party headquarters, has given rise to concerns that legitimate political protest is being confused with illegal behavior.

In accordance with the Constitution of India, freedom of association

Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India guarantees citizens the right to organize themselves into groups, which includes the formation of political parties.

All citizens are guaranteed the right to peacefully meet and organize unions or associations, as this article protects their freedom to do so.

In accordance with Article 19(2), reasonable limits are authorized; however, they can only be imposed on the basis of public order, the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with other governments, public morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

To ensure that limits are neither arbitrary nor excessive, each law that imposes a restriction on these liberties must pass a test that determines whether or not it is legitimate, whether or not it is necessary, and whether or not it is proportional.

Mechanisms of the Law for the Regulation of Parties in India

In contrast to Bangladesh’s unprecedented anti-terror framework, India largely supervises political parties through the Representation of the People Act and the guidelines established by the Election Commission.

It is necessary for political parties to register and comply with the standards of financial disclosure. Parties may be subject to de-recognition if they receive an insignificant share of votes in consecutive elections.

According to certain criminal convictions, certain leaders may be barred from running for office and participating in elections. However, the framework does not provide the state with the authority to completely disband or outlaw a party on the grounds that it is suspected of having links to violent activity.

The basic structure theory, which has been supported by the Supreme Court in major cases, precludes revisions to the fundamental democratic aspects of the Constitution, such as freedom of political expression and multi-party competition, even when emergency provisions are in place.

The Fundamental Structure of the Supreme Court and Its Precedents

The judiciary of India has been very vocal in its defense of the fundamental liberties and democratic principles outlined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of S.R. Bommai that democracy and secularism are components of the fundamental structure that Parliament is unable to alter, not even by constitutional changes.

In more recent rulings, the Supreme Court has thrown down legislation provisions that provided the executive branch unbridled power to suppress dissent. These decisions have been made in the context of freedom of expression and assembly.

The precedents that have been established demonstrate that a blanket ban on a political party, which would deprive millions of followers of an organized platform, would almost probably be overturned since it would be a violation of the fundamental structure and the rights that are already in place under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

A Comparative Analysis of the Reasons Behind India’s Divergent Path

The constitutional frameworks and political histories of Bangladesh and India are fundamentally different, which is the root cause of their conflicting approaches. Recent events in Bangladesh have been marked by severe turmoil, which has caused the country’s interim government to place an emphasis on rapid order rather than procedural safeguards.

On the other hand, India has developed a multi-tiered system of checks and balances with the purpose of preventing presidential overreach during its administration. It is advantageous for political parties in India to have specific statutory recognition, as well as a culture of judicial scrutiny that discourages intrusion from arbitrary sources.

While there have been instances in which state governments in India have utilized sedition and anti-terror laws to target activists, it is important to note that these measures frequently encounter fast judicial challenges and popular resistance, which renders a comprehensive party ban unfeasible.

Hypothetical Cases and Their Potential Legal Consequences

Should a hypothetical Indian government attempt legislation to prohibit a major party on the grounds that it is suspected of being involved in violent demonstrations, the proposed legislation would be met with various constitutional obstacles.

It would be necessary for the law to demonstrate an urgent state interest, such as substantial evidence of ongoing violence that was sponsored by the party, and it would also be necessary to demonstrate that no less restrictive action could achieve the same result.

Even in such a scenario, the Supreme Court would exercise a high level of scrutiny, taking into consideration whether or not the prohibition was narrowly crafted and limited in tenure.

It is quite doubtful that a complete prohibition would be accepted given the existence of alternative procedures, such as the criminal prosecution of persons, the exclusion from voting, and the imposition of financial fines.

Upholding the Standards of Democracy

An example of the tension that exists between the imperatives of state security and the protection of political freedoms is the ban that Bangladesh has placed on the Awami League organizations.

Due to the fact that India’s constitutional structure places a strong emphasis on the preservation of freedom of organization and expression, which is further strengthened by a watchful judiciary, the installation of a ban that is comparable may be considered extremely unlikely.

Instead, India relies on a calibrated system of party regulation and an arsenal of legal remedies to combat misconduct. This helps to ensure that political plurality and the fundamental ideals of democracy are not violated in any way.

The Indian example highlights the need of anchoring rights in a durable constitutional system that resists the allure of sweeping restrictions. This is particularly important in light of the fact that some regional events are putting democratic institutions to the test.