+ Follow
Image by sansad.in

Introduction

The acts of post-truth politics are so strong that they are defined by the prioritization of emotional appeals over factual accuracy, and have long destabilized parliamentary democracies globally, including India’s 75-year-old constitutional framework. As political discourse increasingly relies on misinformation and identity-based narratives, institutions like the Lok-Sabha and Rajya Sabha face unprecedented threats to their deliberative functions. This paper analyzes structural vulnerabilities in India’s parliamentary system, evaluates comparative models from Germany and Scandinavia, and proposes actionable strategies to reinforce democratic resilience, aligning with the focus on countering post-truth challenges.

Historical Foundations of India’s Parliamentary System

India’s parliamentary democracy, codified in the 1950 constitution, maintains a blend of the British Westminster model along with indigenous safeguards of authoritarianism. Article 79 of the Constitution vested legislative supremacy in Parliament, while Articles 105 and 194 protected free speech for lawmakers, ensuring a robust debate. However, this balance of deliberative mechanisms gradually got distorted with the rise of digital platforms. The 2024 Ipsos IndiaBus survey revealed only 37% public trust in Parliament, a 7% decline since 2019, signalling systemic erosion of institutional credibility.

Comparative studies reveal parallel crises in other democracies too. For example, in the case of Poland’s 2015 parliamentary deadlock, we get to see the deadlock, because it was fueled by the Law and Justice Party’s anti-establishment rhetoric, demonstrating how post-truth narratives exploit low public trust. A similar landscape gets a fine hand in India during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, which saw 74% of political advertisements on Meta platforms deploy emotionally charged claims unrelated to policy, including AI-generated deepfakes of opposition leaders, reflecting a deliberate shift from fact-based discourse. It also showcased the fact – that the trend mirrored – the 15% trust gap between high- and low-income groups identified in the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, underscoring rising public cynicism.

Structural Vulnerabilities to Post-Truth Dynamics

1. Erosion of Deliberative Norms

 The 17th Lok Sabha referred just 16% of bills to committees for scrutiny, down from 27% in the 16th Lok Sabha, weakening legislative oversight. In other words – the 17th Lok Sabha implemented only 14% of Standing Committee recommendations, compared to 22% in the previous term. This decline in accountability was starkly visible during the passage of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill (2019), which revoked Article 370 without committee scrutiny. Thus parading towards the fact that parliamentary debates, once platforms for evidence-based policymaking, now prioritize partisan theatrics. The BJP’s 2024 campaign, concurrently, amplified divisive rhetoric, including Prime Minister Modi’s controversial remarks labelling Muslims as “infiltrators,” which fact-checkers attributed to 12,000+ viral misinformation claims.

2. Algorithmic Amplification of Polarization

India’s social media landscape, with 68% of users trapped in filter bubbles, facilitates parallel information ecosystems. The IT Act’s Section 79(3), which exempts platforms from liability for user-generated content, has enabled coordinated disinformation campaigns. For instance, AI-generated deepfakes during the 2024 elections falsely implicated opposition leaders in corruption scandals, with Meta approving 63% of hate speech-laden advertisements within 24 hours. That is during the 2024 elections, AI-generated deepfakes falsely implicated opposition leaders in corruption scandals, reaching 18 million voters before takedown. The lack of penalties for algorithmic bias under current regulations allows platforms like ShareChat to prioritize engagement over accuracy.

3. Institutional Accountability Deficits

While India’s new Parliament building expanded physical capacity, transparency mechanisms lag. Only 14% of Standing Committee recommendations were implemented in the 17th Lok Sabha, compared to 22% in the previous term. This accountability vacuum mirrors the Edelman Trust Barometer 2025 findings, where India’s 15% trust gap between high- and low-income groups underscores rising public cynicism. Also, only 41% of citizens trust the Election Commission11, reflecting scepticism about institutional neutrality. The 2023 Media Literacy Index revealed a 47% disparity in critical thinking skills between urban and rural populations5, making marginalized groups vulnerable to disinformation.

Comparative Models for Institutional Resilience

Germany’s Regulatory Framework

The 2017 Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) mandates social media platforms to remove illegal content within 24 hours (strict 24-hour takedown mandates), reducing election-related misinformation by 62%. The Bundestag’s cross-party fact-checking protocols, which require lawmakers to cite verified sources during debates, offer a replicable model for India. However, India’s IT Act lacks equivalent enforcement mechanisms, allowing platforms like Telegram to host 32% of EU-origin disinformation.

Sweden’s Civic Education Paradigm

Sweden’s integration of media literacy into primary education (since 2018) curricula has enabled 89% of citizens to identify fake news. In contrast, India’s National Education Policy 2020 lacks comparable mandates, (i.e. in other words – allocates only 1.2% of funding to digital literacy in states like Bihar, perpetuating regional disparities), with only 31% of universities offering digital literacy courses.

Strategic Recommendations

1. Legislative Reforms:

  • Amend the IT Act (Section 79): Impose graduated fines (₹10–50 lakh) on platforms failing to remove flagged disinformation within six hours, mirroring the EU’s Digital Services Act.
  • Parliamentary Fact-Checking Unit (PFCU): Establish an AI-driven body to audit legislators’ public statements, leveraging tools like FACTLY’s claim-matching algorithms.

2. Civic Re-engagement Initiatives:

  • National Digital Literacy Curriculum: Integrate UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy framework into all state board syllabi by 2026.
  • Participatory Deliberation Models: Expand Kerala’s 2021–2023 citizen assemblies, which boosted policy awareness by 41% through grassroots consultations.
  • AI Transparency Protocols: Mandate disclosure of synthetic media in political campaigns under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act.

3. Transparency Mechanisms:

  • Open-Access Legislative Dashboard: Publish MPs’ voting records, committee attendance, and lobbyist interactions in real-time, as advocated by the ADR’s 2024 governance report.
  • Monthly Social Media Audits: Require platforms to disclose content takedowns, political advertisement expenditures, and algorithmic bias metrics, as per the revised enforcement of the election commission, orders, reports or data, as the requirement will mandate.

Conclusion

India’s parliamentary democracy, though strained by post-truth politics, retains structural advantages of review, federalism, and a free press that authoritarian regimes lack. And is apparent that democracies survive not by resisting technological change but by harnessing it to reinforce constitutional values. Thus, by adapting Germany’s regulatory rigour, Sweden’s educational focus, and Kerala’s participatory models, India can reclaim its deliberative ethos.

.    .    .

References:

  1. ADR UK. (2024). ADR UK annual report 2023–2024. https://www.scadr.ac.uk/news-and-events/news-adr-uk-annual-report-2023-%E2%80%93-2024-out-now
  2. Das, S. (2023). Inequality in educational attainment: Urban-rural comparison in the Indian context. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16238
  3. Deccan Herald. (2024, October 9). Karnataka govt forms panel to frame fact-check mechanism. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/karnataka-govt-forms-panel-to-frame-fact-check-mechanism-3224895
  4. Edelman. (2025). Edelman Trust Barometer 2025. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-01/2025%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer_Final.pdf
  5. Hindustan Times. (2023, July 27). Bill to amend Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act tabled in Lok Sabha. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/jk-reorganisation-bill-2023-introduced-amid-protests-reserves-seats-for-kashmiri-migrants-and-displaced-persons-101690398872201.html
  6. Ipsos. (2024, June 24). Ipsos IndiaBus most trusted institutions 2024. https://www.ipsos.com/en-in/indiabus/defence-forces-army-navy-air-force-pm-country-rbi-supreme-court-india-and-election-commission-indiabus
  7. Ipsos. (2025, March 25). Ipsos IndiaBus trust in institutions survey: Media ranks low. https://mediabrief.com/ipsos-indiabus-trust-in-institutions-survey-media-ranks-low/
  8. Lührmann, A., et al. (2021). How democracies prevail. PMC.
  9. Mazzarella, C. (2018). Electoral systems, trust in parliament, and vulnerability to populism. ASPG Journal.
  10. National Portal of India. (2023). Indian Parliament overview. Government of India. https://www.india.gov.in/
  11. PRS India. (2024). Functioning of the 17th Lok Sabha. https://prsindia.org/files/parliament/vital_stats/Functioning-17th_Lok_Sabha.pdf
  12. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. (2023). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review. University of Oxford. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review
  13. ScienceDirect. (2023). Deliberative democracy and social choice theory. ScienceDirect Topics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/deliberative-democracy
  14. The Print. (2025, March 1). The percentage of voters who don’t trust ECI nearly doubled in the last 5 years. https://theprint.in/politics/percentage-of-voters-who-dont-trust-eci-nearly-doubled-in-last-5-yrs-csds-lokniti-survey/2040206/
  15. UNESCO. (2021). Media and information literacy curriculum. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377068
  16. Wheatley Institute. (2023). Institutions in the post-truth era. Brigham Young University.

Discus