Editorial

Pope Leo XIV has joined the debate on Artificial Intelligence with his 40,000-word encyclical Magnifica Humanitas issued last month, calling upon the world to take an ethical view of AI and adopt safeguards against its misuse. The head of the Catholic Church, in a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the technology moving the world, made an appeal to keep it “human-centred” and ensure that its power is not translated into authority over human life. The Vatican clarified that the argument is not for rejecting the technology, but to make it serve people responsibly and to protect their dignity. Warning against monopolistic control of the technology, the Pope said the world should learn from the fallouts of the social media age. Popes have in the past expressed their views on important ideas and events in human history. While they have influenced the actions of governments and the thinking of societies, they have been regarded primarily as talking points, advisories, or suggestions in recent times. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII responded to the Industrial Revolution in his encyclical, Rerum Novarum, calling for harmonious relations between capital and labour, while supporting the workers’ rights and the cause of social justice. Such thinking and concerns have shaped important discourses and guided societies in times of distress. Beyond the theological intent in the Pope’s position on AI, there is a human message that transcends faith and religion. Each generation has a responsibility to preserve the dignity of the individual, promote justice, and encourage fraternity. The message also urges the world to see an important distinction: AI is not morally neutral, so it cannot be judged only in terms of the technologies it entails. The Pope’s is not an isolated voice; others have stated apprehensions about the role AI may have on human lives. These concerns find expression when new ideas and technologies emerge. They are necessary when the world is in a race to expand the frontiers of technology. Such expansive endeavours risk becoming reckless and reaching a stage where the distinction between public good and private profit is extinguished. At a time when there is discussion about human functionalities and agencies being taken over by algorithms, at a time when autonomous warfare is in the realm of possibility, there is a need to assert that man is the measure of all technology and ideology. This is why the Pope’s call for internal restraint and external regulation of the technology resonates with the world. (Source: DH)

India’s education establishment has a peculiar relationship with reform: it announces it loudly, implements it hastily, and then retreats into silence when things go wrong. The CBSE OSM controversy of 2026 is only the latest — and perhaps the most damaging — example of this pattern. When CBSE introduced On-Screen Marking for Class 12 board examinations this year, it presented it as a leap into transparency and modernity. Answer scripts would be scanned, uploaded to a secure portal, and evaluated digitally by teachers from their own schools — no more physical transport, no totalling errors, no delays. The pitch was impeccable. The execution was not. What unfolded after results were declared on May 13 was, by any measure, a crisis. Students reported shockingly low marks that bore no resemblance to their preparation or performance. Many answer sheets had been scanned with blurred or illegible images, making fair evaluation almost impossible. The re-evaluation portal malfunctioned under load. Teachers, already struggling with a system they had barely trained on — in some cases for just one week — reported screen fatigue, repeated corrections, and mounting anxiety during the high-stakes evaluation period. The rot, it turns out, ran deeper. The OSM contract was reportedly awarded to Hyderabad-based Coempt Edu Teck — the lowest bidder — over more established players. A 19-year-old cybersecurity researcher then publicly disclosed multiple critical vulnerabilities in the OSM portal, including the potential for unauthorised access to examiner accounts and modification of marks. He had reported these to CERT-In in February; most remained unpatched by May. Meanwhile, teachers in Delhi were issued show-cause notices when Class 12 results slumped at the national level — effectively penalising educators for failures that were structural. To compound matters, CBSE had simultaneously abolished post-result verification of marks for Class 12 — the very safety net that would have allowed aggrieved students a formal recourse. The way out demands more than an apology. First, CBSE must immediately restore the right to post-result verification and process all pending re-evaluation requests free of cost, given that the fiasco was institutional rather than student-driven. Second, an independent technical audit of the entire OSM process — from scanning hubs to examiner interfaces to data security — must be commissioned and made public. Third, accountability must reach the decision-makers who overrode teacher warnings, not just the vendor. And fourth, any further expansion of OSM must follow genuine piloting, rigorous teacher training, and independent security certification. The implications for children are not abstract. Class 12 scores determine college admissions, scholarship eligibility, and in many Indian families, the entire arc of a young person’s life. A wrongly awarded mark — whether too low due to a blurred scan or tampered by a security breach — is not a statistical error. It is a stolen opportunity.   CBSE owes its 1.8 million Class 12 students not just answers, but justice. (Source: The Pioneer)  

India has recorded an impressive performance in public health indicators in the sixth round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-6), released last week. The gains are significant compared with findings from recent surveys. Increased social health spending has helped the country achieve remarkable outcomes in reproductive health and childcare. Institutional deliveries are at 90% now. Compared with the NFHS-5 findings, child stunting dropped from 35.5% to 29.3%, and severe wasting dropped from 7.7% to 5.2%. Vaccination levels for children are above 96%. The survey reflects the positive impact of Ayushman Bharat-PMJAY and other health protection initiatives. Outside the health sector, it reveals commendable progress in women’s digital inclusion and financial empowerment. While these are positive signals, some of the survey’s findings should also cause serious concern. Child nutrition is one such area: 85% of India’s children in the 6-23 months age group are not receiving an adequate diet. A decline in exclusive breastfeeding during the first six months has been reported. More than 31% of children have been found underweight. The survey also reports an increasing incidence of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. One in six Indians is reportedly diabetic, and close to 30% are obese. The obesity level is about 27% for men and more than 30% for women. As most children do not receive essential nutrition, childhood obesity is a growing trend in the country. In the survey, there are pointers to a paradox related to nutrition: the coexistence of undernutrition, which leads to stunting and wasting in children, and worrying levels of obesity. The survey shows that nutritional diversity, which is critical to all segments of the population, needs to be promoted and accorded special attention in the case of children. NFHS-6 is also important for what it does not say. It entails only 101 key indicators as against 131 in NFHS-5. The survey has left out markers such as anaemia prevalence, sex ratio at birth, infant and child mortality rates, and household use of clean cooking gas. Although the reason for these omissions is not explained, some parameters are reportedly shifted to specialised surveys. The survey does not reveal an ideal picture of the country’s health, with concerns marked across sections of the population. Its findings present a case for greater momentum in public health investment and targeted programmes tailored for optimal impact. India cannot afford a growing population that is grappling with falling health. (Source: DH)  

India’s criminal justice system has never suffered from a scarcity of laws, but rather from a paralysis of performance. The Union Home Ministry’s dismissal of the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, as “redundant” is a reminder of this reality. By pointing out that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) already contains adequate provisions to deal with hate speech and communal incitement, the Centre has effectively ruled out the possibility of the Bill receiving presidential assent. The Bill, passed in the Belagavi session in December amidst fierce Opposition protests, sought to criminalise hate speech through a dedicated state statute. It defined hate speech broadly to include verbal, written, electronic, and symbolic expressions intended to create disharmony or enmity. It expanded protected categories to include gender and sexual orientation, and prescribed stringent punishments, including imprisonment of up to 10 years for repeat offenders. The legislation also empowered designated officers to order the removal of online content and authorised police and executive magistrates to take preventive action if they believed an offence was likely to occur. While the intent to curb communal poison and protect vulnerable communities was legitimate, the Bill raised serious concerns. Critics argued that its definitions of “disharmony” and “ill-will” were vague and elastic, leaving enormous room for subjective interpretation and misuse. The preventive powers granted to law enforcement based merely on “reason to believe” appeared dangerously broad and vulnerable to political abuse. The provisions relating to online content removal also risked creating a parallel censorship framework outside the established processes. Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot flagged these constitutional concerns while reserving the Bill for presidential consideration. The Union Home Ministry reinforced those objections, pointing out that erecting overlapping state-level criminal structures on subjects already governed by central law would only breed legal confusion and constitutional friction. None of this diminishes the grave danger posed by hate speech. It remains one of the most corrosive threats to social harmony, capable of normalising discrimination and triggering violence. But the answer does not lie in the endless multiplication of laws. India already possesses sufficient legal provisions to prosecute offenders. The real failure lies in weak investigation, poor evidence-gathering, and delayed prosecution, resulting in abysmally low conviction rates. The lack of consequences emboldens those indulging in hate speech. The government must first close these administrative gaps that feed a culture where hatred is deployed as a weapon. Laws do not deter by virtue of novelty, but by the credible certainty of their enforcement. (Source: DH)

After the fiasco of a paper leak in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination conducted by the National Testing Agency, the large-scale bungling of the evaluation of answer sheets of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Class 12 exam has raised serious questions about the ability of educational authorities to conduct examinations. The On-Screen Marking (OSM) system, which was introduced with fanfare as a high-tech system, more efficient and transparent than the earlier one, turned out to be a flop, and has created anxiety and uncertainty for about 1.8 million students. The pass percentage was the lowest in recent years, and when students sought re-evaluation of their papers, it was found that the evaluation was done badly. Poor scanning left the answer scripts blurred. Some were mixed up and left unmarked. Some answer sheets were missing, and correct answers were not marked. The CBSE first tried to cover up the bungling. The student who first made the problem public faced online hostility and abuse. The Class 12 examination is very important, and the results define the careers of many students. Lakhs of students are now unsure of their results and marks. According to reports, four lakh students applied for the revaluation of their papers. It has now come to be known that the agency which was entrusted with implementing the system did not have the right credentials, and has been involved in controversies earlier. Adequate preparations were not made, and teachers were not trained before rolling out the system. The CBSE ignored warnings from teachers and others against its hasty deployment. It is now trying to defend the system. Its offices have sent unsigned messages to school principals telling them to make social media posts defending the system. IIT Madras has been asked to correct the technical problems in the OSM. There are demands for an independent investigation, and there is a case for it. On Saturday, another national examination, the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) UG 2026, faced disruption at many centres because of a technical glitch. Mismanagement of so many consequential exams has affected the students’ faith in the examination system. Hearing a petition on the NEET paper leakage, the Supreme Court said that responsibility for it must be fixed. The government told the court that the prime minister was himself monitoring the matter. Does that mean there was a lack of effective monitoring till now? It is unfortunate that the person at the top of the examination system, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, continues to be at its helm, even though he has said that he accepted responsibility for the failures. Democracy demands accountability in deeds, not in words. (Source: DH)

There is something arresting about the world’s most influential spiritual leader reaching back four millennia to a myth about bricks and hubris to make sense of the age of algorithms. Yet Pope Leo XIV’s instinct is sound. In his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, released on May 25, he warned humanity of a pivotal choice — “either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together.” Strip away the theology, and what remains is a political and moral argument of urgent force. The Pope’s central warning is that control of artificial intelligence must not remain in the hands “of a few”. This is not a niche religious concern; it is a diagnosis of a crisis already unfolding. A small constellation of American technology corporations — armed with vast capital, proprietary data, and lobbying influence — is effectively writing the rules of the most transformative technology in human history. Pope Leo criticised the immense power concentrated within a handful of private technology companies, and rightly so. When the architects of a technology are also its regulators, something has gone badly wrong. The Babel metaphor is apt precisely because it captures the paradox of AI power. In the biblical narrative, Babel represents human hubris — humanity’s attempt to reach the heavens through its own power, resulting ultimately in confusion and fragmentation. Today’s AI ecosystem mirrors this dynamic: a dominant technological culture, monolithic in values and driven by profit, building upwards at immense speed while treating the human cost as an afterthought. Pope Leo warned that a singular, totalising technological culture risks becoming a new form of oppression. For the United States, the encyclical arrives at an awkward moment. Last week, President Donald Trump delayed an executive order that would have created a voluntary process for testing AI models — retreating even from the mildest gesture towards oversight. Washington remains consumed by geopolitical competition: deploy AI faster than China, weaponise it sooner, regulate it later — if at all. Pope Leo’s emphasis on human dignity and his opposition to autonomous weapons place him in direct contrast with techno-optimists who argue that the United States must militarise AI advances before its rivals do. The Pope does not oppose technological progress. Rather, he argues that calling for prudence — even for a slower pace in adopting AI — is not resistance to progress but an act of responsible care for humanity. That is a distinction that Washington, Brussels, and Beijing alike seem increasingly reluctant to acknowledge. Pope Leo has called for robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users, and political systems that do not abdicate responsibility. These are not radical demands. They are the essential architecture of democratic accountability applied to a domain where accountability has been dangerously absent. The Tower of Babel collapsed not because its builders lacked intelligence, but because they lacked wisdom. That is Pope Leo’s warning. Whether world governments will heed it remains uncertain. History, as he reminds us, has seen this before — and it did not end well. (Source: The Pioneer)

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)