Editorial

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution with the aim of delivering “complete justice”, the Supreme Court has directed all high courts to curb delays in the pronouncement of judgments. The timeline spelt out for verdicts — within three months from the date of reserving the order — is a step in the right direction. The Court has yet again acknowledged a troubling reality: delayed judgments are not merely administrative lapses but a denial of justice itself. It was in the Anil Rai case (2001) that the SC observed the worrisome practice among HC judges of first reserving verdicts and then failing to pronounce judgments for months or even years — or delivering only operative parts of the verdict with a promise to provide detailed reasons later, which in some cases was not done. Litigants suffer when cases are “reserved for judgment” indefinitely. Undertrials continue to languish in jail despite hearings being completed, while victims and their families remain gripped by uncertainty. The Court’s insistence that bail orders be issued on the same day — or at the latest, the next day — is therefore both humane and constitutionally necessary. The SC’s focus on transparency is also welcome. By directing high courts to upload judgments within 24 hours and disclose timelines relating to reservation, pronouncement and uploading of verdicts, the judiciary is embracing greater accountability. Public confidence in courts depends not only on the quality of judgments but also on their timely delivery. The apex court would also do well to ensure that its own judges don’t err on this front. It’s lamentable that the SC has to repeatedly remind high courts to do the needful. The figures are stark: over 64 lakh cases are pending in HCs across the country (around three-fourths are more than a year old). The latest directions are an attempt to institutionalise discipline within the judicial process. At the same time, judicial delays cannot be viewed solely as the failure of individual judges. Timelines must be accompanied by broader reforms, including expedited judicial appointments, better technological support and efficient case management systems. (Source: The Tribune)

In the Central government’s decision not to permit new hydro-electricity projects in the upper reaches of the river Ganga, there is a welcome recognition of ecological realities in the Himalayas. Three central ministries – handling environment, water, and power – told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit, that the government was not in favour of sanctioning new projects on the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers in Uttarakhand. They cited the region’s ecological vulnerabilities, disaster risks, and religious significance as reasons that prompted the decision. However, the government proposes to complete the seven ongoing projects in the region. So far, it has backed multiple infrastructure projects while ignoring credible ecological concerns. Some of them, including the Char Dham project, have run into opposition over their adverse impact on the terrain. Infrastructure projects in the region have been defended on the grounds of national security requirements, promotion of pilgrimage and tourism, power production, and flood control. Now, after multiple disasters, the government appears to have partially acknowledged the urgency in securing the region’s ecological balance. In 2013, the Kedarnath floods showed the world the pent-up, destructive force of Himalayan nature. Since then, the region has experienced multiple landslides, cloudbursts, and subsidence in both urban and rural areas, and on highways. Glacial retreats, caused mainly by climate change but also aggravated by human intervention in nature, have led to major disasters and altered the topography of many areas along the Himalayan stretch. In 2023, a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) in north Sikkim washed away a hydroelectric project on the river Teesta. Apprehensions regarding hydropower projects underway on the Ganga basin have been placed before the Supreme Court since the 2013 flash floods. The government’s affidavit was in response to a Court directive seeking a status report of the projects. The principle behind the Central government’s change in stance should apply to other projects under construction or consideration in the Himalayan states. The projects being planned in the eastern Himalayan region on the rivers Teesta, Siang, and Dibang have attracted criticism. India has proposed a mega hydroelectricity transmission plan centred on the strategically critical Brahmaputra. Geologists and environmentalists have repeatedly expressed concern not only over the massive construction activity but also over the expansion of human settlements. Notably, this is a region that lacks a comprehensive ecological plan. It should be prioritised, ensuring that its framework covers all construction activity, both in the fragile ranges and the lower regions. (Source: DH)    

West Bengal’s new Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Suvendu Adhikari, has started with a series of contentious administrative decisions. It has renamed or repackaged some of the welfare schemes launched by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government and introduced central schemes that the previous government had kept at bay. It has also resumed the stalled national census exercise. Governments reversing and revising the decisions of outgoing administrations is not unusual practice. But the divisive tones in some of the other moves are striking. The new government has directed district authorities to set up “holding centres” for apprehended foreign nationals and released foreign prisoners. It argues that the move aligns with its promise to identify and deport illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Some of these centres have started functioning. Adhikari said Bangladeshi immigrants detained in the state would be handed directly to the Border Security Force (BSF) for deportation, instead of being produced before courts. This is considered adherence to the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which imposes penalties on illegal immigrants and other offenders. However, handing over suspected immigrants to the BSF without following due process raises legal and humanitarian concerns. Assam Police has deported bona fide citizens to Bangladesh in a similar fashion. Stripped of the officialese of “deportation,” the process involves pushing people across the border. Notably, Bangladeshi authorities have also pushed many of these people back into India. Such arbitrary actions may find endorsement among some sections, but they go against the basic principles of law and humanity. There seems to be a contest among BJP chief ministers, especially the converted ones like Adhikari and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, regarding anti-Muslim actions and rhetoric. The government has stopped all welfare assistance based on religious classification and allowances managed by the Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department. It has mandated the rendition of Vande Mataram during morning assemblies at madrasas. No one should be forced into acts that are against their religious beliefs. The government should not act like unruly elements imposing religious symbolism and practices on other communities. Celebrations following the BJP’s electoral win saw some meat shops in the New Market area of Kolkata being razed down. On May 15, the Calcutta High Court stayed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)’s bulldozer action on allegedly illegal structures in the city’s Muslim-majority Topsia neighbourhood. From Adhikari’s words, before and after his party’s historic mandate in the state, what is seen now may only be the beginning. (Source: DH)  

The Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) recent directive to schools on the mandatory introduction of a third language in the curriculum is poorly conceived and difficult to implement. In a May 15 circular, the Board told over 33,000 schools to initiate steps to teach a third language in Class 9, starting July 1. It stipulates that at least two of the three languages students learn under the three-language formula must be native Indian languages; the options include Hindi and Sanskrit. This order, issued at the beginning of the school year, will disrupt the academic programme and greatly inconvenience students, teachers, parents, and schools. Requiring students to learn what is essentially a new subject at an advanced stage of schooling can cause poor learning outcomes. It is difficult to imagine how the CBSE could take such an arbitrary decision that has serious consequences for the students. The move is particularly harsh on those who have been learning foreign languages and are now expected to start afresh with another language. It will place a burden on the students, which will reflect on their overall performance, given the additional time the new subject demands. Most schools lack the infrastructure to ensure that the new subject is taught well. Textbooks are unavailable, and schools lack trained teachers. The CBSE has told schools to make temporary arrangements, such as assigning the work to teachers in other subjects who have “functional proficiency” in the additional language. It also recommended Class 6 textbooks, supplemented with local material, to be used in Class 9. The Board is reported to have stated, on April 9, that the compulsory three-language requirement for Class 9 would not be implemented until the 2029-30 academic year. What pushed it to reverse this decision, in just over a month? The move is also seen as going against the NEP (National Education Policy)’s position on teaching of languages and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023. The CBSE held no consultations before taking this critical decision. The haste defies logic. Hindi is obviously the main beneficiary of the directive. Any move to teach Hindi in schools is likely to become contentious in non-Hindi states, and the manner in which it is sought to be done is particularly so. The Board has stuck to its position despite credible apprehensions and protests. It cannot lose sight of its primary concern – the students and their interests – and must withdraw this directive. (Source: DH)

India is in the grip of an unprecedented heat wave, with many parts of the country reeling under high temperatures. Fifty of the world’s 50 hottest cities were reported to be in the country two days ago, and the wave is still sweeping across much of the country, especially in the north, central, and eastern regions. Temperatures have soared above 45 degrees Celsius in many places. It has even touched 48 degrees. More than half of the hottest cities are in Uttar Pradesh. The summer has been longer this year, with the hot conditions setting in early. The high heat has implications for individual health, livelihood, and the economy. Many deaths and hundreds of heatstroke cases have been reported. According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), India’s average night-time temperatures are rising by around 0.21 degrees per decade. Farmers have started working at night in some areas. Schools have changed their vacation schedules, and some offices and factories have changed their timings. Along with farmers, labourers, construction workers, street vendors, delivery agents, and others who have to work or move in the open have been badly affected. The poor are the most vulnerable, because shortage of water, lack of electricity, inadequate housing and shelter, and difficult living conditions accentuate the impact of heat. Animals, birds, plants, and trees suffer even more than humans. The World Bank had said in 2022 that about three-fourths of India’s labour force worked in heat-exposed sectors, and the country may account for nearly half of the world’s projected job losses caused by heat stress. The economic impact will be high. It had warned that heat waves can cost the country about 4.5% of its GDP by 2030. There are also warnings that the heat wave and a below-par monsoon can, by themselves, contribute to inflation in a major way. It is not India’s geographical position or any special climatic situation that has made the country the world’s heat capital. Denudation of forests, destruction of vegetation in cities and towns, and degradation of lakes and other water bodies have contributed significantly to the change in climatic and weather conditions. The forces of climate change have added to it. The localised weather prediction system is still inadequate. India has not developed effective heat action programmes for regions, states, and smaller areas. The programmes that exist are disaster relief plans for emergency response and not long-term plans that address the root causes of the worsening heat wave conditions. Heat waves are not just about temperature. They are about the environment and the relation between human lives and nature. (Source: DH)

In the online republic that has suddenly emerged in India, the cockroach is the national insect, outshining the tiger, the peacock, and other worthy beings that stand for its identity, culture, and values. The Supreme Court is India’s highest seat of justice and wisdom, and so it was no surprise that a description made there of some of the country’s citizens assumed a local habitation and a name in an instant and moved millions, outnumbering the world’s biggest formation that puts the cow at the heart of its politics. If the unseen and the unwashed out there suddenly found resonance in a meme, the fault lies not with them, nor with the rival banners of the cockroach and the parasite. The words were seeds that sprouted in laughter, which cannot be banned or arrested even by the ED. Who’s afraid of the lowly cockroach? The withholding of the emblematic cockroach collective’s social media accounts is both ridiculous and dangerous. What is online is at the same time real and unreal — real enough to be felt and unreal enough to be missed. It is comic to land a legal blow on an idea that is expressed so absurdly and so jokingly. Therein also lies the danger of the State turning intolerant, oppressive, and foolish. The cockroach became a sudden symbol that attracted concerns and anxieties, mostly of the young, perhaps because they are impatient and respond quickly. But to think of it as a Gen Z wave out to uproot the pillars of the State is to overreact. The agencies that found the meme platform a threat to national sovereignty have demeaned themselves. A State that considers humour or satire subversive undermines its own democracy. The Cockroach Janata Party cannot yet be called a party, or even a movement. It is a mood against politics as it is practised now, and is not just against the ruling party. It is chaotic, perhaps even anarchic, unhampered by ideology, steeped in meme culture, and above all, anti-establishment. It is simple to a fault. India has seen such moods guiding campaigns against governments during the JP movement and the Anna Hazare agitation. But they had some leadership, organisation, and goals. This is an online crowd with slogans without grammar, and an idea without a definition. But when it is suppressed, it justifies its existence, and validates its legitimacy. Ideas are difficult to exterminate. They go underground, evolve, and survive, like cockroaches. The insect insurgency is a warning to those who hold that the end of history is near and that the future is an unwinding of the past. It tells us there are other futures, other possibilities, and other imaginations. (Source: DH)

There is a certain theatre to summitry, and Beijing staged it masterfully. First, Donald Trump arrived, then Vladimir Putin – each travelling thousands of miles to sit across from Xi Jinping in Beijing, now at the centre of geopolitics. The optics were unmistakable: China is now the world’s indispensable interlocutor, and Xi its undisputed convener-in-chief. The agenda of the Xi-Putin summit, held on Wednesday, was broad in scope and strategic in intent. The two leaders signed documents spanning trade, technology, scientific research and intellectual property, while extending their foundational treaty of “good neighbourliness and friendly cooperation” – first inked a quarter of a century ago. They spoke warmly of cooperation in artificial intelligence and even the conservation of rare tigers and pandas. But beneath the ceremonial warmth lay substance that matters greatly for the rest of the world. “The global agenda of peace and development is facing new risks and challenges, with the danger of fragmentation of the international community,” the Xi-Putin joint declaration stated in clear terms. The centrepiece of their joint statement was a pointed condemnation of United States. Both leaders warned of a world drifting back towards the “law of the jungle” — a deliberate rebuke of American foreign policy, directed squarely at the Trump administration’s unilateralism, its pursuit of a “golden dome” missile defence system, and its decision to allow a nuclear arms treaty to lapse in February. Whatever the diplomatic niceties, this amounted to a declaration of an alternative world order — one centred on Beijing. Yet the summit also revealed limits. Russia and China failed to finalise a long-anticipated gas pipeline agreement that would have doubled Moscow’s fossil fuel exports eastward. Pricing disagreements reportedly blocked a deal – a reminder that even the warmest partnerships have hard commercial edges. Currently, China sits at the forefront of global geopolitics. It can pick and choose partners and dictate the terms of engagement. Putin needs China far more than China needs Russia, and Beijing knows how to use that leverage quietly. However, it is unmistakable that the two powers are drawing closer, and the synergy is evident. First, the Russia-China axis has deepened beyond rhetoric: from military exercises to — according to European intelligence agencies — covert training of Russian soldiers, Beijing’s “official neutrality” on Ukraine is increasingly difficult to sustain as credible. Second, Xi’s carefully choreographed reception of both Trump and Putin in the same week underlines China’s rare position as a power that neither the United States nor Russia can afford to alienate. Third, and perhaps most consequentially, the joint warning against American “unilateral bullying” signals that Beijing and Moscow intend to shape the architecture of whatever post-American international order may be emerging together. Whether the world should find that prospect stabilising or alarming is, perhaps, the defining geopolitical question of our era. (Source: The Pioneer)  

While the Coronavirus remains fresh in public memory, two other viruses with varying threat indicators have appeared in different parts of the world. They remain active, but their scope is largely localised. Hantavirus, which was recently discovered on a Dutch cruise ship in the South Atlantic, caused the death of three people on board. The risk from the virus has been categorised as low – the virus causes a zoonotic disease that spreads mainly through the inhalation of rodent saliva, urine or droppings. Human-to-human transmission is uncommon but not impossible. The ship started its voyage from Argentina, where the virus is endemic. Failing to detect its presence in time allowed it to circulate for weeks. The threat from Ebola is more serious. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared its spread in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda a “public health emergency of international concern.” This marks the outbreak as a serious threat, just below the level of a pandemic. WHO has confirmed 246 suspected cases and 80 suspected deaths in the DRC as of last week. Ebola’s presence has been reported in parts of Africa for over a decade, and the virus has caused over 11,000 deaths. It can spread from person to person and has a high fatality rate. No known vaccines are effective against the strain currently circulating – Bundibugyo – and no treatment protocols are currently available. The strain is not easily detected through tests, limiting the options of scientists and doctors in developing treatment strategies. WHO has indicated that the virus’s potency and transmission trends may point to a bigger outbreak. Ongoing conflicts in the affected regions, coupled with the migration and displacement of people, risk spreading of the disease. The countries affected by the outbreak are hampered in the fight to contain it. WHO’s operations have been hit by the cessation of funding by the United States and other constraints. African countries remain extremely vulnerable to such threats because their mitigation efforts hinge on the import of vaccines, medicines, and medical equipment. India has postponed two events scheduled in Delhi following the Ebola outbreak: the India-Africa Forum Summit (May 28-31) and the International Big Cat Alliance summit (June 1). Passengers from the affected countries are being tested. The WHO alert is significant as an early call for preparedness. Though the virus has not reached the proportions of a global threat, the need for caution cannot be overstated. (Source: DH)

Are populous nations better off than those with a smaller population is a question that is not easy to answer. Generally speaking, a large population is difficult to manage and has its downsides, as it puts pressure on resources, the environment and governance. As more people compete for limited resources, conflict is inevitable. However, on the other hand, many nations are struggling with sluggish or negative population growth and are even inviting people from outside to settle. Even China, which we have replaced as the most populous nation, is reeling under the negative impacts of pursuing an aggressive population control regime. In India, we have charted a cautious course. While public campaigns like ‘Hum Do Hamare Do’ and many incentives for having small families have been offered, it has never been coerced, and the choice has by and large remained voluntary, except for a brief period during the Emergency in the 1970s when it was aggressively pursued by Indira Gandhi’s government. The result was resentment, and the government fell. However, now it appears that views on population growth have come full circle, and Andhra Pradesh is now actively promoting larger families. The Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to incentivise larger families marks a sharp shift in India’s long-standing population policy. With the State’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) falling to 1.5 — well below the replacement level of 2.1 — concerns are growing over an ageing population and a declining young workforce. Under the proposed “Pillale Sampada” initiative, families opting for a third and fourth child may receive financial incentives.  The concern is not merely statistical. Falling fertility rates eventually reshape economies, labour markets and social structures. A shrinking young population means fewer workers, lower productivity, reduced tax revenues and increasing pressure on welfare systems. As elderly populations grow, governments face mounting healthcare and pension burdens without a sufficiently large workforce to sustain them. This is precisely the demographic trap confronting countries such as Japan, South Korea, Italy and Germany. Even China, once synonymous with strict population control through its one-child policy, is now struggling with rapid ageing and declining productivity. However, what is right for Andhra Pradesh at the moment may not be suitable for the rest of the country. India has a largely unemployed population, and pressure on resources is immense. It would be difficult to join the club of developed nations if population growth is not checked. Encouraging larger families without simultaneously expanding social infrastructure could deepen economic inequalities. Moreover, demographic realities differ sharply across India. Northern States such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar continue to record relatively high fertility rates, while southern States are ageing faster due to better literacy, urbanisation and healthcare outcomes. The larger lesson is that population is neither a burden nor an asset in isolation. Its value depends on how effectively governments invest in education, healthcare, skill development and employment generation. (Source: The Pioneer)

Upholding its 2025 ruling on removing stray dogs from public spaces, the Supreme Court of India has now allowed euthanasia of rabid and dangerous dogs in the interest of public health and safety. The original judgment was seen as unrealistic given the massive investment and logistics involved in removing the dogs from spaces such as railway stations, hospitals, and highways, and rehabilitating them. In its latest order, the Court said the dogs picked up from these locations should not be released there even after vaccination and sterilisation. Municipal authorities in the country do not have the personnel for the job or the infrastructure to house these dogs. The Court has told the authorities to adopt legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases of “rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs.” This is effectively a prescription to cull the dogs without discrimination because the Court’s condition that the decision should align with the assessment of qualified veterinary experts is likely to be observed in the breach. It risks entrusting the municipal staff with powers to act as the judge, jury, and executioner – killing the dogs will be seen as a convenient, legitimate response. Notably, the Court observed that there is a “discernible absence of sustained, systematic and incremental efforts to expand and strengthen the infrastructure to manage the dog population.” This situation is likely to remain. The Court ordered the setting up of a fully functional birth control centre in every district, equipped with the requisite infrastructure, trained personnel, and surgical facilities, and proposed an expansion of this setup. There is no clarity on timelines or other details in the directive. But what is certain is that most of the dogs around us will not live to see these centres. In its latest ruling, the apex court seeks to solve a problem created by people and civic authorities. Stray dogs have proliferated because of conditions caused by administrative failings. An effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, with a firm focus on vaccination and sterilisation, remains the most viable solution to the problem. Public policy should, no doubt, prioritise human health and welfare, but it must also be humane and kind. It should not be hostile to life. It cannot breach the fundamental principle that the earth does not belong to human beings alone. Law and policy, designed around human existence, must not become tools to deny other living beings their rights. (Source: DH)