Republic as constitutional restraint
The term Republic is often invoked in ceremonial and political discourse, yet its constitutional meaning remains widely misunderstood. Republic Day is observed annually with military parades, national symbolism and public celebration, but the constitutional content of republicanism is rarely examined. The Indian Constitution does not describe India merely as a democracy, but as a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. This description is not ornamental. It is a normative legal framework that imposes substantive limits on the exercise of public power.
In classical political theory, the idea of a republic originates from the Latin expression res publica, meaning the public thing. A republic is not defined by the absence of monarchy alone, nor by the existence of elections. It is defined by the principle that all public authority is exercised in trust for the people, subject to legal restraint and justified through public reason. In modern constitutional theory, a constitutional republic is understood as a system where governance is carried out through elected representation, constrained by a written constitution, bound by the rule of law, and subject to institutional accountability through judicial and regulatory oversight.
Indian constitutional meaning
In Indian constitutional doctrine, republicanism is not merely a descriptive label. It has been recognised as a substantive constitutional value forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently held that features such as popular sovereignty, judicial review, constitutional supremacy and institutional accountability cannot be diluted even by constitutional amendment.
Justice Madan B Lokur, in his analysis of republicanism in the Indian Constitution, has emphasised that the republic survives not through electoral rituals, but through continuous institutional restraint on executive power. It has been argued that republican governance requires more than popular mandate. It requires that power be exercised within constitutional limits, subject to independent scrutiny, and capable of justification in public interest terms.
Republican decay, as identified in contemporary constitutional discourse, is not marked by the collapse of democratic structures. It is marked by institutional weakening, executive dominance, regulatory opacity and erosion of accountability mechanisms. The danger does not arise when governments lose elections. It arises when governments remain insulated from constitutional correction.
Republic and nationalism
A crucial distinction must be drawn between republicanism and nationalism. Nationalism emphasises identity, sentiment and unity. Republicanism emphasises accountability, restraint and public reason.
When nationalism becomes the dominant justification for governance, public interest risks being replaced by majoritarian approval. Development is framed as progress. Opposition is framed as obstruction. Dissent is framed as inconvenience. In such conditions, executive continuity is preserved even when public opposition persists, expert bodies object and institutional warnings are issued.
This shift from republican accountability to nationalist justification represents a constitutional inversion. Power is exercised not because it is constitutionally defensible, but because it is politically popular. In a republic, popularity does not replace legality. Electoral success does not replace constitutional obligation.
State governments in particular are required to function as republican institutions, not as ideological extensions of national sentiment. Their constitutional duty is owed primarily to local public interest, not to centralised political narratives.
The Goan experience
Goa provides a revealing case study of republican inversion. Major environmental and land use decisions have increasingly been characterised by executive assertion, limited public participation and retrospective justification. Projects are often introduced without prior constitutional consultation with affected communities, and objections are addressed only after public resistance emerges.
The Unity Mall project at Chimbel illustrates this pattern. Public opposition has not been directed at development as such, but at the absence of participatory process, environmental assessment and institutional transparency. Villagers have not challenged the legitimacy of governance. The legitimacy of the method by which governance is exercised has been questioned.
A more striking constitutional illustration has emerged from coastal regulation governance. The National Coastal Zone Management Authority has formally pulled up the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority for regulatory failure, weak enforcement and lack of deterrent action in Coastal Regulation Zone violations. It has been recorded that over half of all CRZ violations reported nationally originated from Goa alone. Repeated directions have been issued requiring case wise reporting, institutional monitoring and effective enforcement.
What is constitutionally significant is not the existence of violations, but the institutional pattern that follows. A specialised national statutory body has been required to intervene to correct a State authority functioning under an elected government. Regulatory failure has been exposed not by political opposition, but by institutional oversight.
Portuguese and Republican irony
A historical irony is also revealed through Goa’s colonial experience. Under Portuguese administration, despite the existence of a monarchical system, significant ecological preservation was maintained across the territory. Extensive green cover, regulated land use and environmental restraint characterised governance for several decades.
The comparison is not intended to romanticise colonial rule. It highlights a constitutional paradox. A modern elected government operating under a constitutional republic has demonstrated less environmental restraint than a colonial administration operating under a monarchy. This does not reflect political failure. It reflects republican failure.
The irony acquires further symbolic depth through contemporary diplomatic developments. On the eve of Republic Day, India has invited the former Prime Minister of Portugal, António Costa, of Goan origin, as a chief guest. A descendant of Goa’s colonial past is welcomed to celebrate India’s republican present, while the constitutional substance of republican governance within Goa remains institutionally fragile.
The Republican test
A useful constitutional test for republican governance may be formulated as follows. Would a decision remain legitimate if citizens were provided full information, meaningful participation and institutional power to veto it? If the answer is negative, the decision may be lawful, but it is not republican.
By this standard, much of contemporary governance in Goa fails the republican test. Environmental governance fails the transparency requirement. Land governance fails the participation requirement. Urban planning fails the public reason requirement. Development policy fails the accountability requirement.
A republic is not defined by who governs. It is defined by how power is restrained.
