the process, the Government not only took away Jammu and Kashmir’s special status on specious legal grounds38, but also split it into two federally controlled territories.39Although these changes were approved by the Union Parliament, they were brought into effect without consulting either the Jammu and Kashmir State Government — which was at the time under the President’s rule40 — or the people of the State. Other than its constitutional impropriety, the decision has also been criticised as breaking a sacrosanct historical arrangement between the State and the Union.41 Numerous regional leaders were detained preemptively, ostensibly to prevent protests against revocation of the special status.42 The revocation was also followed by the longest ever internet shutdown in a democratic state.43 Even as Jammu and Kashmir continues to reel under its worst internet shutdown,44 new domicile rules were introduced in the State. These are thought to be an attempt to meddle with the State’s social and religious composition.45 These Government actions are just a part of a larger systemic suppression of press46 and academic freedom47 in India. While the decline in free speech is evident from India’s fall in the Press Freedom Index,48 individual cases bring to light the severity of the crackdown. Specifically, the invocation of repressive Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 196749 and sedition provisions50 against activists, including students, and academics offer examples of the severity of the current threats to civil liberties. While dissenting voices have been muted, the Government and ruling party leaders have been accused of supporting disinformation campaigns demonising political opponents, Muslims51 and dissenters52. c. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has further strengthened the hands of the Government. Under the cover of the pandemic, when courts are functioning at a reduced capacity, it has been pursuing and detaining dissenters,53 even after the Supreme Court suggested decongesting prisons.54 The judicial system – often seen as the last resort of justice in India – has failed to rise up to the challenges to India’s constitutional scheme posed by recent government actions. Although the Supreme Court heard arguments against the Jammu and Kashmir internet ban, its judgment provided no effective relief,55 leaving the final decision on internet restoration to the executive itself. Similarly, the Supreme Court declined to hear the question of the constitutionality of the CAA as a matter of priority.56 These decisions are in stark contrast to the Court’s global image as a pro-active guardian of constitutional rights57 and raise questions about its independence.58 Thus, India appears to be at historical crossroads, with 2019-2020 seeing significant developments towards an authoritarian and Hindu nationalist state, raising important concerns around human rights and the preservation of India’s constitutional order. Appendix: Fall in India’s democratic values (from V-DEM database)59