What the TVK government’s revoked orders reveal about its idea of democracy

The Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK), a party founded by veteran actor Vijay,  came to power with an assurance of  people-centred governance. But what does the new government’s two recent orders, rolled back immediately, signal to us about their broader approach towards democracy?

During his campaigns, Vijay capitalised on the outgoing government’s failures in curbing police violence, caste atrocities and other law and order issues. However, after assuming power, the Chief Minister’s own statement evading responsibility during the assembly debate on police reforms and defense of the law and order situation, tends to deviate from the same accountability questions he posed to his predecessor. Moreover, police violence soared in the state since the TVK government came to power, resulting in eight alleged custodial deaths within 4 months.

More worrying are the TVK government’s two specific government orders, swiftly revoked, one barring students from participating in Left-organisations’ protests and another curtailing provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005. They are key to understanding the approach of this government and its loyalty to the promises it made to the people.

Profiling dissent and restricting assembly

On August 14, 2026, the Department of Collegiate Education issued an urgent circular directing school and higher education departments, police and district administrations to take coordinated, joint action to prevent students from participating in protests organised by the Leftist political parties and the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). Principals of government arts and science colleges were tasked with tracking, profiling, and actively stopping students and youth from joining agitations organised by these parties It came at a moment when the country was experiencing a historic political resistance, as the students mobilised after NEET paper leaks, resulting in the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan as the Union Minister of Education.

At a time when the country is witnessing a landmark moment in its democratic discourse, the circular to restrict and profile Left-affiliated students from a government in Tamil Nadu is nothing less than a blatant attack on the democratic ethos of the state. On its face, the circular is unconstitutional, goes against democratic tenets and is akin to colonial profiling.  Drawing parallels with the Union BJP government, it raises suspicion that the Tamil Nadu government also fears politicised youth and wants to suppress dissent by profiling and preventing them from organising. Although it was rolled back immediately due to the backlash, later revelations that the directive came from the office of the Chief Secretary, the highest serving civil servant directly under the Chief Minister, shows it cannot be dismissed as a mere administrative error.   

When the Constitution has given the power only to regulate assembly and restrict it strictly for the reasons provided under Article 19(2) to (6), such a blanket order from the government hints at an authoritarian approach. This is far from what the TVK had promised before assuming the office. Revoking it without any explanation due to public outrage made it worse. It also raised questions on the integrity of the bureaucratic machinery, mandated to run constitutional checks before an order becomes official.

Blurring transparency and accountability

Another interesting yet regressive move is a more recent order relating to the RTI Act. The RTI Act is a landmark legislation that paved the way for transparent and accountable governance, by removing colonial-era secrecy.

Tamil Nadu was the first state in the country to pass the RTI Act in 1997, eight year ahead of the national legislation passed in 2005. Recently, an order dated September, 21 2026, of the TN government invoked section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, seeking to bring the Public (Law and Order) Department under this exception meant for intelligence and security organisations. This blanket order in practice shall exclude information related to inquiry reports into excessive use of force by police, custodial deaths, police torture, communal and caste violence and civil liberties. When section 24 (4) specifically notes that the exception cannot be used for corruption and human rights violations, such a blanket order runs contrary to the spirit of the legislation.

It is ironic that such an order came from the government led by Vijay, who is taking on corruption in the state and has vowed to ensure transparency in administration. 

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, passed by the Union government, impinges on scope of the RTI Act, shifting the balance away from transparency to safeguard data privacy. In this backdrop, the move by the Tamil Nadu government is another affront to the promise of transparency, especially since the state pioneered the legislation. Moreover, invoking the exception meant for intelligence and security measures to conceal information on  everyday policing is akin to the weaponisation of national security laws by the Bharatiya Janata Party government against democratic dissent. This order, mapped within the rising police violence and caste atrocities in the state and the recent unanswered questions about law and order posed to the Chief Minister in the Assembly, hints at creeping authoritarianism alien to Tamil Nadu.

Administrative errors or ulterior agenda?

The act of revoking both the GOs shortly after severe backlash from civil society leads to the question ‘Is the TVK government using Tamil Nadu as a laboratory for converting into a police state?’, as posed by several activists and leaders. While some may argue that these rollbacks indicate that the government respects public opinion, it does not bode well with the fact that two sitting ministers have openly defended such a blanket, unconstitutional order, before it was revoked. The regressive nature, legality and the motives of these orders could be due to administrative inexperience of the young Cabinet and lack of cohesion. It could also be an attempt to test the waters before introducing such repressive policies without respecting constitutional values and public opinion.

Had the civil society not been vigilant enough to immediately oppose these circulars, the government could have curtailed dissent, restricted transparency and accountability on human rights violations.

This particular order joins an array of five controversial rolled-back decisions in less than four months by the new government, including the appointment of an astrologer as the CM’s advisor and the forced acquisition of protesting farmers’ lands. The recent arbitrary arrests of hundreds of health workers even before the protest only raises more suspicions about the government’s high-handedness. 

A recent Health Department circular that threatened disciplinary action against employees who publicly criticise Union or state government policies, including on social media also needs our attention. Issued days after health workers’ protests, that the government responded to brutally, it imposes a sweeping restriction on employees’ freedom of expression. Its restrictions on criticism of the Union government schemes also raise questions about the 

TVK government’s purported anti-BJP stance.

For a party that rose to power using the iconic image of one celebrity, such chaotic moves are not surprising. Nonetheless, all the revoked orders, especially the two discussed above, signal a deeper threat to democracy rather than mere administrative malfunction. This raises a genuine and worrying question: “Will Vijay truly keep his secular social justice promise and deliver good governance or be another populist leader who is more concerned about being in power?”

Edgar Kaiser is a human rights lawyer at People's Watch while Janarthanan Karunakaran is an independent political observer. Views expressed are the authors' own.