Civil Liberties Clash: New Policy Sparks Nationwide Anger, Lawyers Call It Unconstitutional

In recent weeks, a wave of outrage has swept across India as the central government’s proposed and actual policies have ignited fierce criticism from civil‑liberties groups, activists, and the legal fraternity. Many have labeled these moves a direct assault on constitutional freedoms — including privacy, free speech, and the independence of the legal profession. What’s more, several prominent commentators and bar associations have argued that these changes may well be unconstitutional.

In this article, we examine the main policy flashpoints, the arguments being raised, and what this could mean for civil liberties in India in the months ahead.

Key Flashpoints: What’s Triggering the Outrage

1. Proposed Always-On Location Tracking on Smartphones

The government is reviewing a telecom-industry proposal that would mandate “always-on satellite-based A‑GPS tracking” in smartphones — effectively requiring phone manufacturers to enable continuous location tracking. This is being presented as a tool for enhanced lawful surveillance.
This comes on the heels of a separate directive, which has since been revoked, that would have mandated pre-installation of a state-developed “cyber‑safety” app on all new smartphones sold in India.

2. Erosion of Professional Autonomy of Lawyers

The draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (intended to amend the Advocates Act, 1961) proposed a series of changes that lawyers assert would undermine the independence of the legal profession. Among the contentious provisions: the central government would gain the power to nominate members to the Bar Council of India (BCI), and lawyers would be prohibited from strikes or boycotts — with criminal penalties for non‑compliance.
The resistance from the legal community was swift and widespread. After protests and boycotts nationwide, the government withdrew the Bill in February 2025 — publicly acknowledging pushback from the BCI and other stakeholders.

3. Broader Context: Laws and Enforcement Practices That Already Challenge Civil Liberties

It’s not just new proposals — longstanding laws have also drawn scrutiny. For instance, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), thousands have been arrested in recent years, yet conviction rates remain extraordinarily low. Human rights and civil‑liberties groups argue that the UAPA often becomes a tool to detain dissenting voices and activists indefinitely.
Additional reforms to India’s criminal justice system — notably the introduction of new penal laws to replace colonial‑era laws — have raised fears that vague or overly broad definitions could be used to target protesters, dissenters, or marginalized communities.

Why Critics Say These Moves Are “Unconstitutional” or a Violation of Civil Liberties

Privacy Concerns & Surveillance Overreach

Mandating always-on location tracking would essentially convert smartphones into “digital ankle bracelets,” stripping away any reasonable expectation of privacy. Such pervasive surveillance can reveal intimate details — where people go, whom they meet, when they travel — potentially exposing activists, journalists, or dissidents to surveillance, intimidation, or coercion.
The withdrawal of the pre-installation mandate for the cybersecurity app suggests that even the government recognized how fraught the privacy implications were. But the renewed location-tracking proposal shows the challenge remains, and privacy advocates warn this could institutionalize surveillance in a manner incompatible with democratic freedoms.

Threat to Independence of the Legal Profession

The proposed amendment to the Advocates Act would institutionalize government influence over the BCI — an entity that is supposed to be autonomous and representative of legal practitioners. By allowing government-nominated members and curtailing bar associations’ ability to protest or strike, the Bill threatened to muzzle one of the last independent voices in the judicial ecosystem.
Legal practitioners and bar associations argued that such measures undermine fundamental democratic principles: the right to dissent, the independence of the judiciary and legal fraternity, and the ability to challenge state excesses without fear of retribution.

Historical & Ongoing Patterns of Rights Erosion

Critics point out that this isn’t an isolated moment — India has a recent history of strong-arm laws and enforcement that risk civil liberties. The UAPA, for example, has been used repeatedly to detain activists and human rights defenders — often resulting in prolonged pre‑trial detention and very low conviction rates.
Legal reforms attempting to replace older statutes have also drawn objections. Lawyers and human rights experts caution that broad and ambiguously defined laws may give authorities sweeping powers of arrest, detention, seizure, and surveillance — with limited checks and limited recourse for citizens.

The Response: Protests, Public Outcry, and Legal Friction

The most immediate and visible backlash came from the legal community. When the Advocates Amendment Bill was published, lawyers across India announced boycotts of court proceedings, protests and widespread condemnation. Within weeks, the government withdrew the Bill.
Privacy and digital‑rights organisations have strongly criticized the smartphone location‑tracking plan, calling it “deeply concerning” for privacy, especially for journalists, activists and human rights defenders who rely on anonymity or confidentiality.
Public and political opinion has also erupted. For many citizens, the proposals represent an alarming shift towards increased state surveillance and control — feeding fears that India might be sliding toward a “surveillance state.”

Constitutional Principles & Legal Framework at Stake

The controversies raise serious questions about the state of constitutional protections in India. At the heart of these debates are several foundational principles:

• Right to Privacy — Legal scholars widely recognize privacy as a fundamental right under India’s constitutional framework. Forcing always-on location tracking arguably violates that right, unless there are clear, narrowly defined safeguards and transparency.

• Freedom of Speech and Expression / Right to Dissent — The draft law curbing lawyers’ ability to strike or protest undermines basic democratic principles. The right to dissent and the independence of bar associations are vital checks on state power.

• Rule of Law & Separation of Powers — The autonomy of the legal profession, and an independent judiciary, are essential to prevent misuse of state power. When the state gains undue control over legal institutions, the balance of power tilts dangerously.

• Due Process and Fair Trial Rights — Broad laws with vague provisions (e.g., in UAPA or other criminal legislation) risk arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention, and denial of bail — undermining citizens’ right to a fair trial.

Broader Implications: What This Could Mean for India’s Democracy

If such policies become institutionalized, the potential long‑term consequences are grave:

• Chilling Effect on Civil Society & Journalism: Persistent surveillance may deter dissent, limit freedom of association, and instill fear among activists, journalists, or human rights defenders.

• Erosion of Institutional Checks & Balances: Weakening institutional autonomy — whether of the legal profession or civil society — undermines accountability and makes it harder to challenge government excesses.

• Normalization of State Surveillance: Once “always-on tracking” becomes policy, future expansions (e.g., facial recognition, metadata surveillance, real-time monitoring) may become easier to justify, further eroding privacy and civil liberties.

• Social & Political Polarisation: Targeted arrest laws and surveillance are often used disproportionately against marginalized communities or political dissenters — exacerbating social divisions.

What Happens Next: Legal Battles, Civic Pushback, and the Fight for Rights

At present, some key signs point to how the story may unfold:

• The government may re-draft the Advocates Act amendments and attempt to reintroduce them at a later date — possibly with slightly different language. The earlier withdrawal shows that civic pushback can influence policy outcomes.

• Civil‑liberties groups and privacy organisations will likely intensify advocacy around the location‑tracking proposal. With mounting public awareness and media scrutiny, there may be legal challenges initiated on the grounds of privacy and constitutional violation.

• Public debate on the trade-off between security and liberty will gather momentum — raising fundamental questions about what kind of democracy citizens want.

Why This Matters — Not Just for Lawyers, but for Every Citizen

Although much of the current blowback has come from lawyers and civil‑liberties advocates, the stakes go far beyond the legal community. These developments concern all citizens because:

• Smartphones have become ubiquitous — mandatory location tracking would affect almost everyone.

• If institutional autonomy and right to dissent are eroded, it weakens the ability of people to hold the state accountable.

• Civil liberties — privacy, free speech, freedom of assembly — are foundational for a vibrant, pluralistic democracy. Once lost or weakened, they are hard to reclaim.

In essence, these policy fights are not about niche legal technicalities; they are about the character of democratic governance itself.

Final Thoughts

The recent uproar over proposals like always-on smartphone tracking and amendments curtailing legal‑profession autonomy reveal a deeper tension in Indian democracy: the trade-off between state power (or perceived security) and individual freedoms.

While the government may argue such measures are necessary for national security, law enforcement, or modernisation, critics warn that the cost — to privacy, dissent, institutional checks, and civil liberties — is too high.

India’s recent history suggests that civic pushback, public scrutiny, and constitutional litigation remain powerful tools to resist overreach. Whether these safeguards will be enough in the face of growing state ambition remains to be seen.

For now, what’s clear is that citizens — not just lawyers or activists — have a direct stake in this debate.