How Governments Use Law to Take Away Your Rights
January 3, 2026
Many people believe that in a democracy, if rights are taken away, it will happen in a loud and visible way. They expect big announcements, harsh crackdowns, or sweeping bans. But in practice, rights often disappear quietly. It happens through routine paperwork and official steps that seem ordinary. Over time, the same legal system that was built to protect you can be used to control you.
Let’s take a moment to remember what our rights are. The right to speak freely. The right to gather peacefully. The right to practise any religion, or to follow none at all. The right to move freely, to keep your privacy, and to live with personal freedom. These rights belong to every citizen, and the Constitution recognises them as basic protections.
No leader stands up and says, “We’re banning protests.” That would cause a public backlash. So instead, they say, “We’re updating public order rules.” They don’t say, “We’re going after journalists.” They say, “We’re tightening national security.” On paper, the Constitution stays the same. But in practice, freedom begins to disappear.
This kind of control often works through laws written in vague language. Words like “morality,” “decency,” “law and order,” or “national interest.” They sound fair and responsible, but they are not clearly defined. That gives governments a lot of room to decide when and how to use them. It also gives them room to expand their powers. All they need is a moment of tension, a protest, a disturbance, or even a rumour. Any of these can be presented as a threat. Once that happens, they call for special measures, and the law gives them more room to restrict freedoms.
This is exactly the kind of legal drift that German political theorist Carl Schmitt warned about. He observed that governments often create special powers during a crisis, like unrest or a threat to national security. These powers are supposed to be temporary. But once introduced, they tend to stick around. Schmitt called this the “state of exception,” where leaders claim the moment is too serious for normal rules to apply. Over time, that exception becomes routine. So laws that were meant for rare situations start getting used all the time, even when there’s no real emergency.
Let’s take a real example. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, was introduced to tackle terrorism. But over the years, it has been used against students, writers and activists. Some were arrested for attending a protest, sharing a speech, or organising a meeting. Under UAPA, the state can jail someone for months without trial. You’re not convicted. You’re just held. And it’s all within the law.
Another example is Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the new criminal procedure law that replaced the old CrPC. This section lets local authorities ban public gatherings if they believe there’s a threat to public order. It’s built on the same logic as the older Section 144, which came from colonial-era policing. These powers were originally meant for serious unrest, like riots. But today, they’re often used to block peaceful protests, marches and even silent demonstrations. Officials say they’re just following the law. But in practice, these orders shrink public space and shut down dissent.
Political thinker Hannah Arendt warned that the early signs of totalitarianism often look ordinary. Without any violence or dramatic takeovers, they begin with quiet changes in the law. People are told that everything is still normal. The courts still work. The rules are still in place. But slowly, freedom becomes harder to use. People adjust without realising that something important is being taken away.
Arendt called this a “bureaucracy of control.” She meant that the system itself becomes the tool of suppression. It works through small decisions made every day, rather than any single major order. A permit is denied. Then a protest is blocked. After that, a journalist is charged. Each step is justified as a procedure. Each action looks official. But taken together, the system starts working against the people it was meant to protect.
Another tactic used by those in power is selective enforcement. This means the law is applied differently to different people. A protest is approved in one city, and blocked in another. A powerful leader makes a bold statement, and nothing happens. A student says the same thing, and is arrested. The law is written the same way for everyone, but it is not used the same way. People start to see that some voices are protected while others are punished. Over time, the law no longer feels like protection. It begins to feel like a threat.
One reason this keeps happening is that people often trust the law without question. If something is written into a law, they take it as proof that it must be right or fair. But history tells a different story. Apartheid in South Africa followed laws. Segregation in the US was upheld by courts. The Emergency in India was declared under constitutional provisions. These were all legal. But they weren’t just.
So what can citizens do?
Start by asking simple questions. Who is being targeted? What law is being used? Is the punishment fair for what actually happened? Is this law used the same way for everyone, or only against critics? And most importantly, does this action make rights stronger, or does it quietly take them away?
A democracy is not judged by what’s written in its Constitution. It is judged by what happens in everyday life. And if we stop paying attention, we may find that our rights are still written down, but no longer work in real life.