Editorial

There is a certain poetry in the setting. The Group of Seven, born out of oil shocks in 1975, reconvenes in Évian-les-Bains, France, from June 15 to 17, in a year marked by geopolitical fragmentation, and renewed questions about the role of the forum itself. The anxieties may be the same as fifty years ago, but the stage has become far more complex. France has carefully constructed its summit priorities around addressing macroeconomic imbalances, strengthening economic security and critical mineral supply chains, and reforming international development partnerships. President Macron has been unusually ambitious in his G7 presidency, seeking to push the grouping beyond its traditional comfort zones. He has invited Chinese representatives to a video call to address global imbalances — a bold move that signals Paris’s desire for genuine multilateralism rather than performative solidarity. Artificial intelligence is high on the G7 agenda, and Macron’s decision to invite OpenAI’s Sam Altman to summit discussions underlines his intent to position France as Europe’s AI powerhouse. Trade tensions, energy insecurity, sovereign debt crises, and the fallout from the Iran war are all expected to be on the table. The attendance of President Donald Trump, however, adds its own layer of uncertainty to the summit’s outcome. Trump’s transactional instincts and scepticism of multilateral frameworks have a way of rewriting summit scripts. France also wants to put dialogue, crisis-response, and renewed multilateralism at the heart of its G7 presidency, themes that sound aspirational given today’s fractured world order. The Iran crisis, West Asia, and the security of commercial shipping lanes will inevitably dominate back-corridor conversations. Among the most anticipated moments of the summit is what will transpire on its sidelines between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump. The talks will be the first in-person meeting between Modi and Trump. The backdrop is complicated. India-US ties have faced occasional friction over trade policies, India’s purchases of Russian oil despite the personal bonhomie between the two leaders. New Delhi has bristled at the last claim in particular, viewing it as an overreach. Trump, meanwhile, congratulated Modi on becoming India’s longest-serving elected Prime Minister, reflecting his personal rapport with him. The two leaders are expected to discuss the stalled India-US trade framework, with New Delhi eager to reduce the tariff burden on Indian exports. Yet the ghost of last year’s Canada G7 looms — when Modi arrived ready to negotiate, only for Trump to leave the summit early.  Modi’s visit is expected to reinforce New Delhi’s efforts to position itself as a leading voice of the Global South and an influential stakeholder in shaping future rules around artificial intelligence, economic cooperation, and sustainable development. That is a long-term diplomatic investment worth far more than any single meeting. Évian may not resolve the world’s crises. But how the leaders navigate their disagreements — and what Modi and Trump signal to each other behind closed doors — will be crucial for Indian subcontinent. (Source: The Pioneer)  

By quashing the proceedings against Newsclick, the Delhi High Court ended the persistent harassment of the media house by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Over six years, the news portal was subjected to a series of hostile actions, including raids, the arrest of its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha, and cases under the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court’s language is striking. Stating that the case would entail a “gross abuse of the process of law,” it noted “only bald assertions that did not even remotely point” to an offence. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed both the cases. The ED and the Delhi Police EOW are set to appeal the High Court judgment. The Court’s ruling and observations are a serious indictment of the two agencies. In 2024, when the Supreme Court quashed Purkayastha’s arrest under the PMLA, it criticised the processes followed in the arrest: “…nothing but a clandestine attempt to circumvent the due process of law.” Purkayastha had already spent over seven months in jail by then. The High Court has now expressed similar views about the processes followed in the two cases. It said: “…there is not a whisper of any incriminating allegation which would suggest the commission of the offence punishable under the PMLA.” It took apart every charge raised by the agencies against the news portal and found no illegality or wrongdoing that attracted any provision of the law invoked. Questions about the authenticity of the charges were raised when Newsclick’s premises were raided, and its employees were interrogated. Condemned by the Editors Guild of India and the journalist community, the action was seen as a response to the independent journalism practised by the media house. This is not the first time cases filed by investigative agencies against critics of the government and dissenters under draconian laws have collapsed in court. Every charge has now been disproved, but establishing innocence involved pain, hardship, and losses, and that itself has become punishment. Agencies can go after any individual or organisation under the most stringent of laws, with little or no evidence of wrongdoing, as the court demonstrated in this case. The burden, still, falls on the accused. Notably, the court said the action against Newsclick was not only mala fide but also an attack on the free press. It also violated constitutional rights. (Source: DH)

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired the 11th NITI Aayog Governing Council meeting, his assertion that “states play a vital role in furthering national progress” resonated with constitutional wisdom. After a long time, Chief Ministers of all 28 states sat together at the Governing Council table – a symbolic moment for cooperative federalism. Yet symbolism and structural reality remain stubbornly apart in India’s Centre-State relationship. The Indian Constitution envisioned a strong Centre with empowered states. Seventy-five years on, that balance remains contested. The grievances of states are not new, but they have grown louder and more urgent. At the heart of state frustrations lies the money question. The GST regime, hailed as a transformative reform, has effectively curtailed states’ independent tax powers. Compensation promises have been honoured in part and delayed in practice. States routinely complain of shrinking untied funds – money they can spend according to local priorities – while centrally sponsored schemes come with rigid conditions that often ignore ground realities. A state like Tamil Nadu or Kerala, with strong development metrics, resents being subjected to the same formula applied to a newly formed state. The Finance Commission devolution figures tell only part of the story. What states receive on paper and what actually flows into their treasuries are different things. Delayed transfers, high cess and surcharge collections that do not enter the divisible pool, and the expanding footprint of central schemes leave state finance ministers perennially short. Beyond money lies the question of jurisdiction. Governors appointed by the Centre have, in recent years, become a flashpoint in states governed by opposition parties. Prolonged delays in giving assent to Bills passed by elected state assemblies – in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Punjab – have raised serious constitutional questions about the role of Raj Bhavan as an instrument of political interference rather than a constitutional check. The elected legislature’s mandate is being held hostage to the Governor’s pleasure, which cuts to the core of democratic federalism. The deployment of central agencies in states in ways perceived as politically motivated, often without the consent of the state concerned, is another irritant in Centre-State relations. What is needed is structural reform. A revamped Finance Commission framework that ring-fences state transfers from cess dilutions would be a start. A codified, time-bound process for gubernatorial assent would restore constitutional propriety. Expanding the role of the Inter-State Council – a body that has met far too infrequently – as a genuine deliberative forum rather than a ceremonial gathering would give states a real voice. PM Modi’s Viksit Bharat vision is unachievable without genuinely empowered states. Districts, blocks and villages – the units he invoked – answer to state governments, not Delhi. A thriving democracy must trust its constituent units to lead. That trust must be backed by an institutional architecture that makes cooperative federalism real in its truest form. (Source: The Pioneer)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi completing an uninterrupted term of 12 years is being celebrated as a major milestone. This is also a time to assess his record of governance, amply reflected in the changes ushered in by the three National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments he led. The Prime Minister deserves credit for some of these transformative changes. India’s economy has grown from being the 10th largest in the world to become the sixth largest; per capita income has doubled; high growth rates were consistently maintained, except during the Covid years. The country has seen large expansions in infrastructure – both physical and digital – and efficient operationalisation of public welfare systems that now touch the lives of about 80 crore people. Inflation has been moderate, and there is hope that the growth will be sustained. In all these metrics, the Modi government did well to build on the foundations laid by earlier administrations. A nation is not just its infrastructure or its economy. Its most important component is its people, their lives, their social and political groupings, and their involvement in the systems that govern them. These 12 years have seen a marked slide on these counts. The country is a lot more polarised than it was in 2014. The Prime Minister’s slogan “sab ka saath, sab ka vikas” has lost much of its spirit and intent, and minorities have many reasons to feel marginalised. The democratic decline is evident, with opposition parties and leaders becoming targets of hostile investigations and actions by government agencies. Many institutions, including constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission of India (ECI), are increasingly losing their autonomy. Serious challenges weigh down the federal system of governance. Democratic freedoms and individual rights are under strain. Violence and lawlessness have greater currency, especially when directed against weaker sections. Inequality has grown, and even in an economy with momentum, unemployment remains high. Attempts are being made to compare Modi’s tenure with that of the country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. This is an irrelevant and unwieldy exercise because they belong to different periods, separated by over six decades. Their challenges were different; so were their responses. There is commonality in that both provided strong leadership and stable administration for an extended period. Nehru is part of history, and Modi is still shaping contemporary India. The latter is too close to the events of the day to be judged by history, which takes a long view of people and their deeds. (Source: DH)  

It was a weakened I.N.D.I.A bloc that met in New Delhi on Monday, against the backdrop of electoral reverses suffered by important constituents. The Opposition alliance has failed to build on the momentum it had after an impressive show in the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has since emerged stronger in states and at the Centre. Two major parties in I.N.D.I.A – the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) – were routed in their states in the recent Assembly elections. In Kerala, where the Congress won, the party was pitted against constituents of the national alliance it leads. In West Bengal, the TMC is facing an existential threat following dissidence and defection. Friction within the alliance is palpable. That the group was meeting for the first time after the 2024 elections shows how serious the parties are in being seen on a common platform. I.N.D.I.A represents a wide spectrum of politics, involving 23 parties with disparate identities and ideologies. It is not known for a united position against the BJP, the common opponent, or for cohesion in its strategies. The DMK, a strong and vocal member of the bloc, stayed away from the Delhi meeting after its post-results fallout with the Congress in Tamil Nadu. Its plans remain uncertain. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) did not attend the meeting. The TMC, another strong pillar of the alliance, has lost much of its parliamentary strength and popular mandate. The Left parties and the Congress have traded charges. Complicating the scene further, leaders of some parties are also switching to the BJP. In the meeting, there was criticism regarding the trustworthiness of Congress. Tamil Nadu has evidence. In spite of the internal misgivings, the parties have decided to work together and present a joint front against the BJP. The meeting agreed on a five-point plan that includes holding consultations more frequently, jointly raising concerns over the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the mishandling of examinations, and coordinating strategies on the floor of Parliament. The parties will meet again in Hyderabad in August. India is facing a multitude of challenges. An effective Opposition can put the government on the back foot over its handling of these issues. However, I.N.D.I.A lacks a credible, unified agenda for its fight against a political adversary that gains further from this inherent disconnect. It will take more than a few meetings and resolutions to get there. (Source: DH)  

At the core of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on human trafficking and sex work is an important distinction. India’s legal and law enforcement systems have continued to approach cases in both areas with a largely similar set of responses. The apex court’s ruling can positively reshape these responses of the State, making it accountable for protecting the rights of women in either situation. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act (ITPA) has failed to recognise the rights of voluntary adult sex workers and ensure their protection. It noted that the statute’s silence on the matter deepened the social stigma they face, resulting in their marginalisation and exploitation. The Court made an important observation when it said, “…the rights of sex workers can exist without there being a right to sex work.” The ITPA follows uniform processes to rescue and rehabilitate women, irrespective of their circumstances. Under its provisions, trafficking victims and voluntary sex workers are placed in protective custody before rehabilitation measures are initiated. The Court said there should be an initial inquiry before placing adults in protective custody. It stipulated that in cases of sex work, recognition of consent should inform rehabilitation decisions. Welfare measures cannot override individual choice. The central principle is that a person who identifies herself as a sex worker by choice has the right to practise her profession; the State cannot take that right away. Since the ITPA treats all sex work within the ambit of trafficking, it also leads to harassment of the very victims the law is meant to protect. The Court has sought from the government a re-examination of the legislative framework that conflates sex trafficking with sex work. Significantly, it prescribed to the State a new approach to trafficking. The Court emphasised rehabilitation, reintegration, and long-term protection of trafficked women. It directed that a victim protection plan be formulated, aimed at setting minimum standards for shelter homes and offering mental health support, legal aid, education, vocational training, and safeguards against re-trafficking. Trafficking of women is a multi-billion-dollar business within and outside the country, operated through organised networks supported by powerful interests. While dismantling these criminal networks will take strong, coordinated action, the Court’s directives are aimed at addressing legal gaps through the lens of rights and dignity. These guidelines need to be followed up with political will and administrative capacity-building. Their impact will also hinge on a responsive and sensitised society. (Source: DH)  

India’s economy delivered a stellar performance in the January-March quarter of 2026. GDP growth came in at 7.8 per cent, easing slightly from 8 per cent in the preceding quarter but comfortably above market expectations of 7.2 per cent, taking full-year FY26 growth to 7.7 per cent. Prime Minister Modi has every reason to proclaim India the world’s fastest-growing major economy. The number is real. The achievement is genuine. But a number, however impressive, is not the full story. Look past the headline, and the stress fractures become visible. Begin with the central bank. The Reserve Bank of India held its repo rate steady at 5.25 per cent for the third consecutive meeting in June, maintaining a neutral stance even as it cut its GDP growth forecast for FY2026-27 sharply to 6.6 per cent from an earlier 6.9 per cent. A central bank that simultaneously freezes rates and slashes its own growth projection is not a central bank radiating confidence. It is one navigating a tightrope. Inflation is now projected to average 5.1 per cent for the current fiscal year, up significantly from an earlier estimate of 4.6 per cent. The “rare Goldilocks” era that RBI Governor Malhotra celebrated just months ago has quietly given way to stagflationary risk. Then there is the rupee downslide. Foreign investors have offloaded over $20 billion in Indian shares so far this year, placing the rupee under severe pressure and making it one of Asia’s worst-performing major currencies in 2026. A sliding currency is more than a financial statistic — it is a barometer of confidence, and right now that barometer is falling.  Capital outflows of $13.7 billion from the equity segment alone since January have prompted the RBI to roll out emergency measures to attract foreign capital. The global backdrop adds further complexity. Economists have cautioned that growth is likely to moderate this year amid rising energy costs and global uncertainty linked to the West Asia conflict. India’s ability to source affordable energy has been disrupted, and the RBI’s own revised growth trajectory for FY27 ranges between 6.3 per cent and 6.8 per cent across quarters – a step down from FY26’s pace. What should India do to keep the momentum alive? Three imperatives stand out. First, protect the rupee without choking growth. The RBI must strike a balance between currency stability and keeping borrowing costs conducive to investment. Deepening forex reserves, encouraging long-term capital inflows and reducing oil import dependence are the sustainable answers. Second, broaden the base of growth. While services, manufacturing and construction have driven the recent surge, agriculture grew just 3.6 per cent — a sector that still employs nearly half the workforce. Inclusive growth demands that rural incomes rise, farm productivity improves and the benefits of the services boom reach beyond Tier-1 cities. Third, stay fiscally disciplined. The temptation to spend India’s way through global headwinds is understandable, but deficit overruns would further spook foreign investors and weaken the rupee. The economy needs not just celebration, but honest diagnosis. The numbers are strong. The foundations need tending. (Source:  The Pioneer)

In the unravelling of the Trinamool Congress (TMC), shortly after its electoral rout in West Bengal, history is repeating itself. Voted out after three consecutive terms in power, the TMC is witnessing a post-defeat breakdown similar to what other parties have experienced. Former chief minister and the TMC’s founder-leader, Mamata Banerjee, has lost operational control, with most members of the legislature party rebelling against her. As many as 58 of the 80 TMC legislators, led by Ritabrata Banerjee, wrote to Assembly Speaker Rathindra Basu stating they were the “real” TMC. The Speaker accepted them as the recognised Opposition in the House, with Ritabrata – expelled from the TMC for anti-party activities – as the Leader of the Opposition. Ritabrata and his group of rebels framed their move as dissent against Abhishek Banerjee, TMC general secretary and Mamata’s nephew, who is seen as her successor. They have not denounced Mamata in public and have even requested her to be their guide and adviser. But these strategic positions notwithstanding, they have broken away from the party and what it stands for. Abhishek’s rising prominence in the party had already left some of the senior leaders disgruntled. It is not just the MLAs and leaders who are leaving; the TMC faces the threat of an exodus of the rank and file. Widespread public disenchantment with the party, now identified with corruption, criminality, and authoritarian internal structures, was reflected in the Assembly election results. For a breakaway group trying to establish itself as the real Trinamool, it makes political sense to distance itself from a leadership that has lost the people’s mandate. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) cannot complain, given that the dissidents have left a weakened opposition in further disarray. This exit staged by Ritabrata, who has travelled through parties, has parallels with the one led by Eknath Shinde against the Shiv Sena leadership in Maharashtra. There, the revolt was managed by the BJP. Regional parties in other states that aligned with the BJP have seen their bases deplete. With more dissent and defections a clear possibility, the TMC and its beleaguered leader are in for testing times. For Mamata, who fought long, tough fights to hold on to power for 15 years, a fractured TMC raises existential questions. Her loss also diminishes the Opposition I.N.D.I.A bloc. On her home turf, she will now have to brace for longer legal and political battles with an adversary who spares no trick to eliminate opposition. (Source: DH)  

The Donald Trump administration’s proposal to impose new tariffs of up to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries, including India, aligns with the United States’ strategic position to use tariffs in the service of trade. US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer said Washington would continue to use tariffs and trade agreements to “increase incentives for domestic production and to open markets for US exports.” The latest imposts have been proposed under Section 301 of the US Trade Act, 1974. Of the 60 countries, 54 are accused of having failed to prohibit the importation of goods produced by forced labour. This group includes China, India, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Six other countries, including Pakistan, identified as failing “to effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition,” must pay a 10% tariff. India said the USTR would decide on the proposal only after considering public opinion. In February, the US Supreme Court struck down the imposition of global reciprocal tariffs, following which President Trump announced a temporary 10% levy on imports. The latest imposts come ahead of the expiration of this temporary measure, on July 24. The US also proposes to launch an investigation into the “structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors” of 16 countries, including India and China. This may also lead to the imposition of fresh tariffs. The investigation and the proposal for new tariffs intend to circumvent the top court’s ruling and enable the administration to continue collecting the tariffs. The effective tariff rate for India had fallen to 10%, but the new impost could take it up to 22.5%. Under the trade deal being negotiated by the two countries, the tariff was expected to be agreed upon at 18%. The proposal for the new tariff has come at a time when negotiations between the two countries over an interim trade agreement were considered to be at an advanced stage. This announcement further emphasises the unreliability of the current administration in the US. Notably, the mixed signals have continued in Trump’s criticism of India for having taken “advantage” of the US for years by charging steep tariffs. Senior US officials have underlined the need for the two countries to maintain robust bilateral relations. New Delhi said, following the new proposal, that it would remain engaged in talks on the trade agreement. As the two sides prepare the final draft, India must remain alert to the arbitrariness in US policy and safeguard its interests. (Source: DH)  

Two deadly accidents on successive days have yet again exposed systemic failures that have left India’s fire safety protocols under a perpetual threat of breach. In Delhi, a fire at a bed-and-breakfast facility killed 21 people. Fire in a hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in Bihar’s Muzaffarpur killed at least five. In March, a fire at a Cuttack medical college and hospital claimed 12 lives. Seven newborns were charred to death in a fire in an East Delhi hospital in 2024. More than 90 people died in a Kolkata hospital fire in 2011. Fire in a Kolkata hotel, in April 2025, saw 14 deaths. The numbers reveal a disturbing continuity spanning decades, pointing to a system that has failed to learn from the past. Hospitals, restaurants, cinema halls, and offices in India remain vulnerable to fire accidents. The reasons across incidents have largely been common: faulty electrical circuits, unscientifically constructed and overcrowded buildings, lack of ventilation, narrow passages and exits, absence of basic fire-fighting devices, and poor awareness of safe exit procedures are prominent among them. The multi-storey building in South Delhi where the fire occurred on Wednesday stood in a crowded area with narrow lanes, which made firefighting difficult. People jumped from the building’s upper floors to escape the fire. Many guests, including foreign nationals, were in the city for medical treatment. An electrical short circuit is suspected to have caused the fire in Muzaffarpur. Multiple fire accidents have highlighted the deadly fallout from poorly maintained electrical systems, especially in high-footfall locations, such as hospitals. The B&B did not have operational clearance from the Department of Delhi Fire Service. Though the facility had the approval for only six rooms, it hosted guests in 25. The building had only one entry and exit point. These are standard red flags across the hospitality sector, but corrections happen, if they happen, only in isolation and after tragedy hits. The violation of basic building and fire safety norms is extensive, and civic authorities who allow the illegalities are complicit. In January, the Delhi High Court directed the authorities to formulate an action plan for fire safety in hospitality establishments. Following the accident, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has launched a crackdown on illegal commercial establishments. But this is familiar ad hocism. Beyond the inevitability of human errors, these mishaps persist primarily due to weak enforcement of established guidelines; they persist due to a system that fails to ensure essential oversight. (Source: DH)