Editorial

Three years ago, Parliament did something it rarely does: agree unanimously. The Rajya Sabha passed the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, by 214 votes to none, promising a third of all seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies to women, with a further third of that share reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe women. Six previous attempts had failed since 1996; this one finally succeeded.  What has still not happened, even now, is a single woman entering a legislature under its provisions — because the Act made its own arrival conditional on events outside its control. Article 334A ties the reservation’s commencement to a fresh delimitation exercise, and delimitation cannot proceed without a fresh census. India’s census, due in 2021, remains uncompleted five years on. No census, no delimitation; no delimitation, no quota. The government’s stated reasoning — that redrawing constituencies on decades-old population data would be unfair to faster-growing states — is defensible in principle. In practice, it has left a landmark law in permanent suspension. In April, the government tried to force the issue with a package deal. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill would use 2011 census figures to redraw constituencies at once, expand the Lok Sabha toward 850 seats — about 273 of them reserved for women — and deliver the quota by 2029. It fell 54 votes short of the two-thirds majority required, 298 for and 230 against, and the government withdrew the companion Delimitation and Union Territories bills alongside it.  The Monsoon Session, due to end August 13, has kept both off the agenda. The Opposition’s objection was never to reservation itself; several parties have also pressed for an explicit OBC sub-quota within it. But their core case is that the 2023 Act never needed a national head-count to hand women a third of the seats that already exist; only a fresh redrawing of constituency boundaries requires fresh population data. Bundling the two, Congress and its allies argue, was designed to smuggle a contentious redistribution — one that would shift seats away from southern and north-eastern states, which slowed population growth fastest, toward the more populous north — inside a bill no party could be seen opposing. That the government needed a mid-course rewrite of its own 2023 law to attempt this only strengthens that suspicion. The way forward needs no new drafting genius, only the will to separate two questions that were never one. Implement the 33 per cent quota now, on the map as it stands, rotating reserved seats each term as the law already allows. Negotiate delimitation on its own track, with the interstate guarantees the South is asking for settled before the exercise begins, not promised after. Three years of consensus on paper deserve better than a fourth year of deadlock in practice. (Source: The Pioneer)  

The Lok Sabha has passed the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, by voice vote amid Opposition protests that never became a real debate. Buried inside a broader tax bill was one consequential change: an amendment to Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 — the provision legally barring banks and payment firms from charging Indians to use UPI. That wall is gone. In its place sits the government’s discretion to notify, whenever it chooses, which payment modes may attract a fee. To be fair, nothing changes today. No Merchant Discount Rate has been announced, and UPI remains free at the counter. But the distinction that mattered — free by law — has quietly become free by permission. Permission, unlike law, can be withdrawn by notification, not by Parliament. UPI is the spine of India’s digital economy: in July alone it carried 23.66 billion transactions worth nearly Rs 30 lakh crore, some 85 percent of the country’s digital payments. That scale was built on one promise, kept since January 2020: UPI would cost nothing. The Finance Ministry itself called charge rumours baseless and misleading as recently as June 2025. Fourteen months later, it has legislated the very power it once denied wanting. Reports suggest the eventual target is a 0.25–0.4 percent levy on merchant payments above Rs 2,000 — just 4 percent of UPI’s volume but 67 percent of its value — while small payments and person-to-person transfers stay free. That sounds reasonable, until RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra’s own admission: someone always pays. It may not be the same consumer at the till, he said, but the wider economy absorbs it regardless. A merchant charged 0.4 percent rarely absorbs it quietly — prices creep up, and “free” starts to feel like a technicality. That is why this will not sit well with ordinary users, whatever the fine print says. Nirmala Sitharaman’s insistence that MDR applies only to merchants, not customers, is technically accurate and practically beside the point — few consumers distinguish between a fee charged to them and one passed through to them. A bill pushed through without real debate only compounds the problem: a foundational digital-inclusion guarantee diluted in a voice vote. The fallback case is not baseless, though. Zero-MDR costs the exchequer real money — Rs 2,000 crore is budgeted this year alone to subsidise banks for low-value UPI transactions — and payment companies have long argued they cannot keep funding fraud detection and infrastructure on zero revenue. Even the traders’ body CAIT has said it would accept a nominal charge on high-value transactions, provided small merchants and ordinary users stay protected. That may be a fair trade-off eventually. But it deserved Parliament’s scrutiny, not a voice vote amid din. Digital India’s biggest success story was built on trust as much as technology. Spending that trust this quietly is the real risk — to UPI’s next hundred crore users, and to the idea that “Digital India” was ever a guarantee rather than a policy revisable by notification. (Source: The Pioneer)

The Supreme Court’s observations on pellet guns in connection with the recent police action on youth protests in Delhi did not engage with a fundamental issue regarding their use. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing a petition on the use of metallic pellets as ammunition by the CRPF’s Rapid Action Force, expressed reservations about the petition. The Court found the demand vague because it did not challenge existing police regulations. It pointed out that the regulations allowed the use of such weapons in exceptional situations, and a prayer for a blanket ban would be untenable without challenging the validity of those very regulations. The Court noted that a bona fide protest may turn violent at any point, perhaps due to infiltration of anti-social elements, sometimes necessitating graded responses of law enforcement. Pellet guns, as a crowd control measure, are distinct from a lathi charge or the use of water cannons. They don’t merely deter; they are instruments of deliberate punishment and risk causing permanent impairment to the affected. Crowd control measures cannot be aimed at punishment, which should come only at the end of a trial. The youth at Jantar Mantar did not commit any offence; they only exercised their right to protest. Past use of pellet guns has caused blindness, facial disfigurement or neurological damage. Kashmir has reported many such cases. Using them against students and other protesters cannot be defined in terms of a “graded response”. This state response is disproportionate and should not have a place in a democratic society. The condition that pellet guns should be used only in exceptional situations is flawed. When the police face an unruly crowd, the personnel won’t be in a position to decide whether they are engaging with something exceptional. In a rapidly evolving situation, while managing an agitated group of people, they might not possess the mental frame for a considered decision. While the use of firearms comes with stipulations such as the below-the-knee guideline, pellet fire can become indiscriminate, causing injuries anywhere on the body. Many international human rights organisations and medical bodies have sought a ban on the use of pellet guns. If the Supreme Court intends to ban the use of these weapons, it can quash the administrative rules and standard operating procedures that make their use legal. The Court can do it under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives it discretionary powers. (Source: DH)

The acquittal of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case by a Delhi court raises troubling questions. These questions are familiar, too, especially when the charges are directed against powerful individuals. In Brij Bhushan’s case, the allegations were made by acclaimed women wrestlers, including Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik, and pertained to sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The court rejected the charges, stating the evidence was inconclusive and citing inconsistencies in the witness testimonies. About two-thirds of sexual harassment cases in the country do not lead to convictions; the rate drops further when influential persons are arraigned. Brij Bhushan, at the time of being accused, was an MP who held clout in the party and the government. After the wrestlers went public with the allegations in 2023, it was clear that their bigger fight would be against the establishment. The fact that the Supreme Court had to intervene to get an FIR registered points to the odds the wrestlers were against. A minor wrestler who levelled charges against Brij Bhushan later withdrew her complaint, leading to the scrapping of a case under the POCSO Act. The wrestlers attracted international attention after they launched an agitation at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. They were dragged away by the police as they headed to Parliament in a march. Some of them considered throwing their medals in the Ganga. Though the Ministry of Sports formed an oversight committee to examine the wrestlers’ charges, its report was never made public. The women wrestlers have said that they will appeal against the judgment. Vinesh Phogat noted that the wrestlers have not given up their hope for justice. They may keep the fight going, but this is a legal battle that underlines the challenge in confronting individuals holding positions of power. Two recent cases from Kerala – one involving the sexual assault of an actress and the other around a nun’s allegations of rape against a priest – illustrate a troubling pattern where protracted legal processes invariably end up punishing the survivors. The collapse of such cases in court will deter women from reporting the abuse. The complainants face intimidation and social harassment. Those who raised the charges against Brij Bhushan also had to navigate professional challenges. When the complainant suffers, and the accused prevails, it erodes trust in the state’s capability to protect survivors and dispense certain and timely justice. (Source: DH)  

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s loss in the Bankipur by-election may be its most significant electoral reverse since the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Prashant Kishor, leader of the fledgling Jan Suraaj Party (JSP), which was routed in Bihar’s Assembly elections last year, stormed the BJP bastion with a decisive victory margin of 19,324 votes. In Madhya Pradesh, another BJP-governed state, the Congress retained the Datia seat. The BJP’s sole consolation came from Gujarat, where it retained Manjalpur, but at a significantly lower margin than in the 2022 Assembly election. By-elections do not indicate the larger popular mood. Their results are not often seen to reflect even the state’s political order. When there are too few of them and when they are held across states, drawing a message of national relevance can become unwieldy. However, the results from Monday have significance that goes beyond the three constituencies. Bankipur has been a BJP stronghold since 1995. The constituency, represented by Nitin Nabin since 2010, went to the polls following Nabin’s resignation after being elected to the Rajya Sabha. That the party lost an urban constituency composed of upper-caste and middle-class voters — its core electorate — to a political rookie is particularly significant, given that it is in power in both the Centre and the state. By replacing Nitish Kumar with Samrat Choudhary as the Chief Minister, the BJP had asserted its dominance in Bihar. The Bankipur outcome undermines that narrative of authority and may be interpreted as reflecting anti-incumbency. Kishor’s margin of victory is emphatic, considering that he was in the fray less than a year after what was dubbed a failed political experiment, and that Nabin won the seat in 2025 by over 51,000 votes. While the JSP leader clearly drew votes from both the BJP and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), the ruling party’s loss carries the louder political message. It remains to be seen if this experiment holds political appeal across diverse social groups. The possible impact of the Gen Z protests demanding examination reform will also be a point of concern for the BJP as it takes stock of this defeat. In Manjalpur, where the voting dropped significantly to 37.5 per cent, the BJP won but with a markedly thinner margin — from over a lakh in 2022 to about 30,000. Congress’s victory in the BJP-dominated Madhya Pradesh provides momentum after recent setbacks. The takeaways from the results are largely symbolic, but they assume greater relevance ahead of key state elections, including in Uttar Pradesh. (Source: DH)

Hockey India (HI)’s decision to swap blue for saffron on the team jerseys in the upcoming FIH World Cup in Belgium and the Netherlands lacks any real justification beyond saffron being the ruling establishment’s political colour. The federation’s primary argument that blue jerseys blur into the blue synthetic turf, creating visibility issues, doesn’t hold up. The blue turf has been standard in field hockey for more than a decade, and Indian players have done well on it, winning bronze medals in the Olympic Games in 2020 and 2024, while wearing blue. Notably, the decision has not been communicated along with credible evidence for the contrast between kit colours and the playing surface influencing player performance or visibility. The manner in which the colour switch was effected raises valid questions about the political objectives behind the move. Former players and administrators have criticised the decision, even as the federation faces charges of aiding a push to saffronise the sport. Viren Rasquinha, former India captain, called the move “embarrassing”, asserting that blue is always linked to the team’s legacy and identity. The most striking voice of dissent came from within the official fold, with HI president and former India captain Dilip Tirkey saying federation office-bearers were informed about the decision only a few hours before the jerseys were unveiled. The president seeking an explanation from the HI Director-General on this matter deepens concerns about the institutional processes followed. He reportedly wrote in an official communication that the larger issue was about decision-making – about a change involving one of Indian hockey’s “most recognisable” symbols. However, HI secretary Bhola Nath Singh has maintained that all officials were informed about this change. The federation has justified the colour change, citing feedback from the players and coaches. The official clarification has pointed to requests made by the players and coaches in connection with a visual overlap caused by the blue jerseys on the blue turf, necessitating a change in the kit’s colour.  It has also noted the significance of saffron, which represents courage and strength in the national flag. However, these arguments fail to justify altering a long-standing sporting legacy. For decades, the blue jersey has defined Indian hockey. The team wore blue when they brought home multiple titles – the colour has been integral to a sporting identity, affirmed in expressions such as “Men in Blue”. Any decision to disregard this cherished tradition sets a concerning precedent. (Source: DH)

India’s environmental law stipulates that development projects should obtain the relevant environmental clearances ahead of operations. The country’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework, based on the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the 2006 EIA Notification, mandates “prior environmental clearance” of projects before irreversible damage can occur. A May 2025 Supreme Court ruling prohibited ex post facto environmental clearances “in any form”.  On July 29, the Court upheld this principle, but diluted the law in spirit, intent, and practice. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant set aside a 2021 Office Memorandum that allowed retrospective validation of environmental violations. But it held that a “narrowly tailored amnesty scheme” can be allowed where it is justified by “public interest”. The Court’s condition is that ex post facto clearances may be allowed if done by a statutory notification instead of an administrative order. While the Court has affirmed the mandate for prior clearance, it has said that the law allows the government to retrospectively validate the violations with a statutory notification, provided such a measure satisfies the tests of proportionality, sustainable development, and public interest. It is the government and the industry that propose large-scale projects that require EIA and prior environmental clearance. Allowing the government to clear such projects by issuing a notification citing public interest removes any legal bar for the projects. The Court has introduced the idea of amnesty into environmental jurisprudence. It says if amnesty schemes are acceptable to deal with tax law violations, they can be replicated for environmental law violations, too. While an amnesty scheme might help the government recover lost or stolen revenue, it will not undo environmental damage like vanished forests or wetlands. The Court contends that the government’s powers to protect the environment, under Section 3 of the Act, include the power to grant amnesty for violations. Under the ruling, clearances already granted under previous notifications will remain protected. Retrospective approvals will be valid if done through formal legislative notifications in the name of public interest. Only a fine may have to be paid. The Court’s ruling conforms with a recent pattern of ex post facto validation of decisions, as seen in the cases relating to Aadhaar and Article 370. It may have narrowed the scope for ex post facto validation of violations, but the opening it has provided may be adequate to greenlight projects with major breaches. The judgment is a setback for environmental governance at a time when climate change demands stronger legal safeguards. (Source: DH)

The Supreme Court has rightly underlined the need for a fair process in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (ECs) while hearing a petition challenging the current system of appointment. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, appointments of the CEC and ECs are made by a committee comprising the prime minister, a Union minister, and the leader of the opposition. This law was enacted after the apex court, in the Anoop Baranwal case, directed that the selection committee include the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The court laid down this procedure to ensure equal representation of the government and the Opposition, with an independent, neutral person of eminence as the third member to guarantee fairness in the choice. The presence of a neutral person on the committee is essential because elections are the most important democratic process, and the body that conducts them must be neutral and independent. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the law, arguing that it was wrong to assume that the prime minister and the minister would “not act in the interest of democracy” merely because they hold a majority in the committee. He said that the office of the prime minister carries constitutional authority and high sanctity, and demanding a neutral member implied a lack of trust in the prime minister. The court made it clear that the issue was not one of trust or distrust in the prime minister, but imbalance in the committee’s composition, which tilts power toward the executive. Democratic processes must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. The sanctity of the office of the prime minister does not ensure fairness and neutrality. The government rushed the legislation to override the Anoop Baranwal judgment and secure control over the appointment of the next CEC. The consequence is visible in the conduct of the Election Commission of India, which increasingly mirrors the government’s interests. The Solicitor General offered a weak defence of a wrong position, while the court’s questions and observations were fair and valid, and affirmed the need for institutional checks and balances in the system. (Source: DH)

A saffron switch to the national game’s jersey has left a lot of former players and supporters feeling blue. Hockey India, the game’s governing body in the country, chose the colour popularly associated with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, triggering communal cries across the nation. Former captains of national hockey sides have vehemently condemned the choice saying blue is where the heart of Indian sportspersons is. In the latest twist, the top two officials at Hockey India do not seem to be painting from the same palette. President and former player Dilip Tirkey said the decision to turn saffron was taken without his knowledge while secretary Bhola Nath Singh insists all officials were aware of the change. Hockey India also tried to justify the move by saying the synthetic turf, on which hockey games are played, is blue and the old uniform was prone to blend with the surface, affecting on-field clarity and visibility for players. The national body also said that saffron symbolises courage, sacrifice and victory and no external pressure guided its decision. In that case, why not any other colour such as red or bright yellow? Though saffron is the top band of our flag, it is the blue from the Ashoka Chakra in the middle that has been widely used on national jerseys, across sports. The cricket players of Team India are better known as Men in Blue, because of the kit’s dominant colour even as ‘India’ and the players’ names and numbers are printed in saffron on the chest and back. A good deal of saffron does form part of the jersey and trousers too. Also Read – Ketan | From test-takers to test-makers: How to boost India’s edu assessment capacity There has been an instance of India’s cricket kit being changed to orange and navy blue, which got a thumbs down from furious fans, who likened it to the uniform worn by fuel-dispensing personnel at petrol filling stations. Sensing a severe drop in mileage, the Board of Control for Cricket in India quickly shelved the kit before the issue caught fire. However, to communalise colour is just not sport. Sportspersons sweat to earn ‘India colours’ as they call national jerseys. It doesn’t matter to them whether they are saffron, blue, white or green. (Source: The Asian Age)    

National symbols, by design, unite people and reflect the shared and aspirational values of the country. They exist above the partisan politics of governments and parties. However, with the passage of a bill that elevates Vande Mataram to the status of the national anthem and makes any insult or obstruction to its singing a punishable offence, the Union government has turned the national song into a polarising text. The bill amended Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, expanding the scope of legal protection to Vande Mataram. The amended law penalises whoever intentionally prevents the singing of Vande Mataram or causes disturbance to its rendition by any assembly.  The punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both – relevant to the national anthem under the original act – now also applies to the contentious full version of the national song. Vande Mataram, written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and published in his novel Anandamath in 1882, was a rallying cry for patriots during the freedom struggle. Since some of the song’s stanzas have Hindu religious imagery, members of minority communities, especially Muslims, were uncomfortable singing those segments. Taking these apprehensions into consideration, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) in 1937 recommended only the first two stanzas of the song. Last year, while inaugurating celebrations around the song’s 150th anniversary, Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed that the omission eventually led to the partition of the country – a prejudiced interpretation of a decision that reflected the spirit of the freedom struggle. It was also a statement out of tune with the national ethos. While championing the bill in Parliament, the government invoked Vallabhbhai Patel. Ironically, Patel had supported the 1937 CWC resolution. The amended law has been framed as a challenge to the minority communities and weaponises the national song. National symbols call for willing compliance; they should not be imposed on people. Mandating the rendition of the song’s six-stanza version undermines the nation’s secular fabric and conflicts with the Constituent Assembly’s intent when it adopted only two stanzas as the national song. The amended bill overrides the vision of the framers of the Constitution of India, the ultimate national symbol. It infringes upon the religious freedom of minority communities. True patriotism is inherently natural and inclusive. It must be cultivated voluntarily rather than imposed through overreach. Forcing compliance through legal coercion or the threat of punitive measures such as imprisonment risks encouraging a culture of political vigilantism. (Source: DH)