On September 1, 2025, in Hyderabad, Justice B Sudershan Reddy—former Supreme Court judge and now the opposition’s vice-presidential candidate—delivered a pointed critique of India’s current electoral climate. Speaking at a press conference organized by the Telangana Congress, Reddy did not mince words: democracy in India, he argued, faces a serious threat if present electoral practices and institutional behaviors continue unchecked. His remarks, echoed across national news outlets, have sparked a fresh debate about the health of the country’s democracy and the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Justice Reddy’s concerns zeroed in on what he described as the “alarming trends” undermining the credibility of elections—the very foundation of democracy. According to The Hindu, he called out the Election Commission’s recent trajectory as the “most pressing constitutional challenge facing the country today.” Reddy cautioned, “If the institution continues on its present course, democracy in India would be in peril.” This, he insisted, was not mere political hyperbole but a genuine warning rooted in decades of legal and constitutional experience.
Reflecting on the early years of independent India, Reddy painted a vivid picture of the nation’s first democratic exercise: the creation of the voter list. “People became voters first and citizens later,” he said, underlining the centrality of the vote to India’s self-definition. The vote, he reminded listeners, was not just a right but a symbol of the nationalist struggle for self-determination—a spirit he said inspired his own decision to accept the nomination for vice president.
Reddy’s critique of the Election Commission was particularly sharp. As reported by Devdiscourse, he described dysfunction within the ECI as the “biggest threat to the Constitution of India.” He expressed alarm at what he called a “casual disregard for democratic processes,” arguing that deficiencies in the Commission’s functioning could erode public trust and threaten the very essence of democracy. “How can democracy endure if the voter list is prepared according to someone’s whims and fancies?” he asked, challenging the current approach to electoral oversight.
His remarks did not stop at institutional critique. Justice Reddy took issue with the broader legislative climate, warning that laws or regulations should never be framed simply because the government commands a majority. “We do not live in a majoritarian state,” he emphasized, highlighting India’s multilingual, multicultural, and multi-religious society. The Constitution, he argued, is designed to limit powers, not grant them unchecked. Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Reddy observed, “Even the best Constitution can fail if those who enforce it are not virtuous.”
Justice Reddy was also candid about his own candidacy. “For the past 53 years, I have lived and worked with the Constitution of India. This is not merely a political position. Both the President and Vice-President must swear to defend and protect the Constitution of India as established by law,” he said, holding up a copy of the Constitution. He stressed that his entry into the vice-presidential race was not about joining politics per se. “I am not affiliated with any party and have no intention of joining one. But to call me ‘non-political’ would be misleading. Every citizen who upholds the Constitution holds political views.”
In a move that underscores his commitment to a cross-party consensus, Reddy has written to all Members of Parliament seeking their support. He made it clear, as The Hindu reported, that the vice-presidential election is not about party loyalty but about the individual candidate’s commitment to constitutional values. “Votes are cast not for parties, but for candidates by Members of Parliament. I seek their votes not on party basis, but as an individual,” he explained.
Justice Reddy’s campaign is anchored in a philosophy of civil liberties, social justice, and the directive principles enshrined in the Constitution. When asked about ideological labels, he replied, “Read the Directive Principles of the Constitution. I resonate with governments that embody these principles.” This stance, he suggested, guides his public interventions and legal philosophy alike.
Another major theme of his campaign is the need for robust public debate. Reddy expressed disappointment at the lack of meaningful dialogue between candidates, particularly criticizing NDA nominee C P Radhakrishnan’s absence from the public discourse. “My intention is not to insult anyone. But dialogue is essential in a democracy. If they too had spoken, the discussion would have been more constructive,” he argued. He went further, stating, “I am looking for a healthy debate between the contestants. My opponent is not to be seen. This is not to belittle his absence, but to highlight how important open debate is for the health of our democracy.”
Reddy’s emphasis on dialogue extended to his response to political criticism. Addressing Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s recent remarks linking him to the rise of Maoism, Reddy welcomed open discussion. “I wish Mr. Amit Shah had read the judgement before making the statement. It was a Supreme Court judgement, authored by me, and later endorsed without a single change by other judges as well,” he clarified, as reported by The Hindu.
The former judge’s campaign also carries a regional resonance. As noted by Devdiscourse, Reddy has appealed to Telugu leaders for support, underscoring his commitment to re-establishing Telugu political influence on the national stage. Though running as the candidate of the opposition, he has acknowledged support from some non-INDIA bloc parties, suggesting a broader coalition of interests united around constitutional values.
Perhaps most striking is Reddy’s insistence that the responsibility to defend electoral integrity does not rest solely with candidates or officials. “Speaking up for electoral integrity is the responsibility of every citizen, not just mine as a candidate,” he argued, urging all Indians to remain vigilant in defense of their democratic rights.
Justice Reddy’s campaign promises to be remembered not for partisan fireworks but for its call to decency and principle. He has committed to ensuring that the current vice-presidential election will be “the most decent election ever fought.” In a political environment often marked by sharp rhetoric and polarization, his appeal for civility and substance stands out.
As the election approaches, Reddy’s warnings about the state of India’s democracy—and his challenge to both institutions and individuals to uphold constitutional values—have set the tone for a contest that may well shape the country’s democratic trajectory for years to come.
