The evolution of the political party system has profoundly affected the power distribution among India’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Political parties dictate legislative dynamics, with the majority party or coalition setting the legislative agenda and significantly influencing the executive branch by selecting the Prime Minister and cabinet members. This dominance can streamline decision-making but may also create an imbalance, allowing the executive to hold considerable power and potentially diminishing the legislature’s checks and balance’s role. Although independent, the judiciary is not entirely free from political influences. Judicial appointments, especially to higher courts, can be contentious and politically influenced. Nonetheless, the judiciary frequently serves as a counterbalance, ruling on constitutional issues and curbing executive and legislative overreach. The role of political parties in Indian politics is a topic of debate. They are crucial for representing diverse interests, ensuring democratic governance, and facilitating political participation. However, concerns such as prioritizing party loyalty over public interest, corruption, and power centralization within parties are prevalent. The dominance of certain parties can suppress political competition and weaken the opposition’s ability to hold the government accountable.

In summary, India’s political party system has centralized power within the legislative and executive branches, while the judiciary works to preserve its independence and maintain constitutional balance. The discussion on political parties emphasizes their essential role in democracy, alongside challenges that need addressing to ensure effective, transparent governance.

Civil disobedience is frequently regarded as a valid method of protesting unjust laws, rooted in the ethical duty to address and correct systemic wrongs. Historically, the movements started for social change led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., civil disobedience has served as a powerful catalyst. These leaders employed nonviolent resistance to expose the moral shortcomings of unjust laws and mobilize public sentiment and political action. The validity of civil disobedience lies in its commitment to nonviolence and its aim to achieve greater justice. When laws uphold inequality or violate fundamental human rights, civil disobedience becomes a crucial means for citizens to voice opposition and demand change. It is based on the belief that legal systems should uphold ethical principles and that people have a duty to resist laws that conflict with moral and democratic values. However, the justification for civil disobedience also depends on its context and manner of execution. It must be thoughtfully conducted to prevent violence and unnecessary harm, focusing on specific injustices and seeking positive outcomes. In democratic societies with existing legal avenues for change, civil disobedience should supplement rather than replace these methods, underscoring the need for legal and policy reforms while respecting the rule of law.