Editorial

The government order requiring that cough syrups be sold only on a doctor’s prescription is a welcome intervention to address the threat of poisoning from contaminated syrup-based medicines. Cough syrups have been removed from Schedule K, which earlier allowed them to be sold even in general stores in villages, and over-the-counter sales from pharmacies have been prohibited. They can only be sold from licensed pharmacies on a valid medical prescription. Cough syrups have caused deaths and sickness, especially among children, as they were readily available as popular medication. Many deaths have been reported from within India and from other countries where the syrups were exported. Last October, 22 children died after consuming cough syrups in Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh. There were many other cases of deaths from different states. Cough syrups exported from India were linked to the deaths of dozens of children in Gambia, Uzbekistan, and Cameroon. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an alert about Indian cough syrups. Many people consume cough syrups without understanding the risks. Making a doctor’s prescription mandatory might help to curb sales, but such rules are commonly flouted. The order does not address the real problem at the manufacturing stage, where the syrups are contaminated with dangerous chemicals. There are no effective safety regulations and guidelines, and an efficient system for monitoring and supervision of processes. The statutory mechanism for quality control and inspections does not work for various reasons, including lack of necessary infrastructure, facilities and manpower, loopholes in the legal framework, delays in the working of the system, and corruption and malpractices. Cases are forgotten soon, and erring units come back into business. Penalties and other punitive actions are often reversed on various grounds. Even after incidents of contamination become public, cough syrups made by the same company continue to be available in the market. The solution to the problem must begin at the source, not at the point of sale. There are over 2,000 cough syrup manufacturers in India, including major pharmaceutical units and small and third-party units. It must be ensured that they follow the right processes, backed by a rigorous regime of testing, monitoring, and quality assurance. Rules demand that the raw materials and every batch of the product should be tested for their quality, but that is not done. The responsibility for the implementation of the rules and regulations rests with the state agencies and regulatory bodies in the sector. There is no effective co-ordination between central and state agencies in the field. Unless these weaknesses are addressed, a restriction at sales points will not achieve the intended results. (Source: DH)

For a generation that has grown up under the relentless pressure of competitive examinations, the recent spate of paper leaks has fractured something fragile: the belief that merit, not manipulation, decides who gets to become a doctor, an engineer or a civil servant. When lakhs of students who have spent years preparing discover that a result can be bought or stolen, the damage extends beyond one exam cycle. It corrodes faith in the entire system of public examinations. The pattern across recent controversies is depressingly familiar. Question papers have been printed and transported through poorly secured logistics chains, sometimes via private vendors with minimal accountability. Centres in remote towns have weak digital infrastructure, making real-time monitoring difficult. There is often a troubling gap between when a paper is finalised and when it is administered — a window long enough for leaks to occur and circulate on messaging apps. Investigations, when they happen, are slow, fragmented across state and central agencies, and rarely result in swift, visible punishment. Most damagingly, the bodies conducting these exams have repeatedly responded with denial rather than transparency, eroding credibility further with every defensive press statement. Gen Z’s fury is not simply about a single exam gone wrong. It reflects a generation that has watched coaching-centre economics balloon, that has poured family savings into preparation, and that increasingly experiences exams as the only ladder of social mobility available to them. When that ladder appears rigged, the betrayal feels personal and systemic at once – amplified and accelerated by social media, which turns local grievances into national outrage within hours. Rebuilding trust requires structural change, not just reassurance. First, examination bodies must adopt secure, encrypted digital question-delivery systems with decentralised, randomised paper sets, reducing the value of any single leak. Second, an independent statutory authority – insulated from political and administrative pressure – should oversee high-stakes national exams, with clear accountability separate from the ministries that benefit politically from smooth exam conduct. Third, the chain of custody for papers, from the printing press to the exam hall, needs forensic-level tracking, audited by external agencies, not self-certified. Equally important is the speed and visibility of justice. Leak investigations must run on fixed timelines with public reporting, and those responsible — whether vendors, officials or examination staff — must face consequences that are seen, not just announced. Finally, students deserve a credible grievance and re-examination mechanism. Anything less leaves an entire generation rightly unconvinced. (Source: The Pioneer)

In a fresh round of political defections, six MPs of the Shiv Sena (UBT) are likely to join the Sena’s breakaway faction led by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. Shinde, who split the Shiv Sena and formed a government in the state in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2022, has induced more defections now. The Uddhav Thackeray-led faction of the Sena alleges that the exercise – termed Operation Tiger – involves a price of Rs 50 crore for each MP, with Rs 15 crore paid in advance. It is being claimed that the deserters will escape disqualification under the anti-defection law since two-thirds of the party’s MPs are switching camps. This contention will be tested by provisions in the anti-defection law which stipulate that a bloc of MPs can join another party only after their parent party formalises a similar merger. These defections follow recent crossovers from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC). In April, seven of the AAP’s 10 MPs in the Rajya Sabha joined the BJP. Following the TMC’s rout in the West Bengal Assembly elections in May, 20 of the party’s 28 MPs in the Lok Sabha announced their merger with the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI), an obscure political outfit based in Tripura. Ironically, some of the leaders of the NCPI, which has no MLAs or MPs, were not aware of this high-profile defection. No party appears safe from desertions now. Reports indicate possibilities of a repeat in the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar), leaving their leaders on the edge. The two outfits have 37 MPs and eight MPs, respectively, in the Lok Sabha. In the backstage of this churn is its biggest beneficiary, the BJP, as it steps up efforts to increase support in Parliament. The defections flout the accepted rules of political conduct and violate the basics of parliamentary democracy. These shifts are not grounded in political convictions or ideologies; they are about power and a fear of harassment and persecution. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which was introduced to curb political opportunism and defections, is a dead letter now. When legislators elected as representatives of parties with stated ideologies switch over to other parties, they normalise a political culture of brazen transactionalism, further eroding public trust in the electoral process. Notably, the conduct of the Lok Sabha and Assembly speakers and the Rajya Sabha Chairperson in the relevant cases has not inspired confidence in restoring this trust. (Source: DH)

By suspending Telegram services until June 22, a day after the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) retest, the Union government is shifting responsibility for the question leakage that led to the cancellation of the May 3 examination. Investigations had led to suspicion that the leaked papers were widely circulated via the messaging application. While the government seems to be pre-empting a repeat of the breach, the National Testing Agency (NTA) remains insular to strong official action.  Telegram has also been directed to switch off message-editing features until June 30. These measures amount to blaming the messenger for the message; by ordering them, the government has sought to find a scapegoat for the agency’s failure to prevent the leak. At the centre of the paper leak is a governance issue; the violation is not about technology, or the dissemination and circulation of information. It exposed the agency’s inadequate preparedness and operational lapses. The government is yet to initiate any credible action to fix accountability for this serious failure. Top NTA officials have been transferred, but transfers are no punishment for a lapse of this scale. Meanwhile, despite widespread protests calling for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the issue, the Minister remains in office. The government has invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to block the messaging application. Under this section, the prescribed grounds for action include threats to the sovereignty, integrity, and defence of the country, and incitement to the commission of cognisable offences, etc. The action against Telegram can hardly be explained on these grounds. The government has been casual and reactive in its actions against social media platforms, many of them initiated without citing credible grounds. It has a history of indiscriminate bans on internet use. India has the dubious distinction of being ranked among countries with the most internet shutdowns. The Internet Freedom Foundation and other digital rights bodies have strongly criticised the action against Telegram, describing it as unconstitutional and disproportionate. Telegram has approached the court for relief, contending that the suspension undermines constitutional free speech protections. It also said 150 million users of the platform are being punished arbitrarily based on the government’s assumptions. Blocking an external messaging application in response to a systemic failing defies logic.  The intermediary is a soft target here. Curbs on its functioning also reveal the dispensation’s view of free internet expression and its propensity to impose checks on that expression. (Source: DH)

By assigning a notional value to a homemaker’s labour, the Supreme Court of India has established an important guideline for monetising women’s household work. This is, critically, a recognition of the social and economic value of the labour. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh described homemakers as “nation-builders”, ruling that unpaid domestic work should be monetised at a minimum of Rs 30,000 per month, with a 10% increase every three years. The ruling came in a 25-year-old case involving a road accident in Punjab. A claims tribunal awarded an insignificant amount as compensation for the death of the victim, a woman. After her family filed appeals in higher courts, the Supreme Court finally decided the case. The principle laid down by the Court is set to guide decisions in similar cases. The Court said: “…it is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent on earning members when, in reality, the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker”. It said the Rs-30,000 benchmark should serve as the basic minimum monthly income for calculating the loss of domestic care, which should be considered a separate head of compensation. The apex court also directed that in cases where the homemaker is a part of the family’s earning workforce, the value of domestic care as prescribed should be added to the monthly income. This ruling will have far-reaching implications not only for calculating compensation in accident cases but also in situations where women’s role as an economic agent must be considered. According to the Time Use Survey conducted in 2019, women aged between 15 and 59 years spend over seven hours daily on unpaid domestic and caregiving work, compared to less than three hours by men. The Court cited the survey, which also found that women perform 2.6 times more unpaid domestic and caregiving work, even when they contribute economically. Women’s unpaid work is estimated to contribute 15-17% of India’s GDP. These figures point to entrenched patterns of a society where domestic work is taken for granted, and where traditional roles assigned to women are normalised, significantly lowering their participation in the labour force. While the ruling is unlikely to change the financial dynamics within families, it should lead to a better understanding of women’s contributions to the household. It has done well to provide a legal framework to measure the value of women’s work in situations where it did not count until now. (Source: DH)

  Football is the beautiful game that knows no borders and brooks no divisions. It evokes the unity of races, languages, nationalities, and religions, and transcends politics and ideologies. The FIFA World Cup has long been a celebration of humanity, testing the limits of the body and the mind. The game’s pace and lulls, hits and mishits, and highs and heartbreaks reflect human life. The tournament – jointly hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico – has brought to life galleries across time zones. It is the celebration of a truly universal game: there are Brazils in distant Kerala, and children play Pele, Maradona, and Messi on streets in the far corners of the world. Times may, however, have changed. The colours in the many-hued ball, which blend to make a seamless globe, also threaten to stand out, pointing to a divided world. While there are more nations than ever before moving the ball now, there is also the irony of mental and national barriers preventing and restricting those movements. Omar Artan, a FIFA-appointed referee from Somalia, was denied entry by the US Customs and Border Protection, despite travelling on a valid visa. The war in West Asia has travelled to the place where it originated, entangling the Iranian team in matters which the game has always subsumed. Shadows of diplomatic disputes and disagreements have fallen over many travel plans. Vozinha, Cape Verde’s goalkeeper hero in its historic 0-0 draw with Spain, cried because his mother could not afford to go to the US to watch his greatest moment. There is more commerce in the World Cup than there ever was, with ticket prices having soared beyond the reach of many fans. Questions arise regarding the high prices when there are more tickets and more games to watch. The irony is that the world’s most-watched game has just become less affordable for most people than ever before. That is part of the bigger question: whether an increasingly divided, nationalistic, and conflict-ridden world is seeing its reflection in the brightest of cups of the most representative game. Football has been a bridge between peoples and nations, and has held the world together. The most competitive of games has also been the most reconciliatory. The rising anxieties and concerns of a shifting world may be affecting the course of the ball on its best grounds. But there is always the hope that the ball, and the times, will pass and the game will remain bonding and beautiful. (Source: DH)      

Earlier this year, Anthropic – one of Silicon Valley’s most consequential artificial intelligence companies – chose Bengaluru as its second Asia-Pacific headquarters, signalling India’s arrival as a serious AI destination. The company also outlined plans to support education, agriculture, and other public-interest applications, reflecting its ambition to use AI beyond purely commercial purposes. Now, Washington has intervened with a wake-up call that India’s IT establishment cannot afford to ignore. Citing national security concerns, the United States has restricted access to Anthropic’s newest and most powerful AI models for foreign users, amid fears that vulnerabilities could be exploited in sophisticated cyberattacks. Unlike earlier export controls aimed at semiconductor hardware, this marks one of the first instances where an AI model itself has been treated as a strategic asset. Anthropic is one of the world’s leading developers of large language models alongside OpenAI and Google. Its flagship Claude models power advanced conversational and coding tools that businesses increasingly rely upon for research, software development, and automation. The implications extend well beyond one company. For Bengaluru, India’s largest technology ecosystem, which houses over 40 per cent of the country’s Global Capability Centres (GCCs), the restrictions highlight the risks of building products and services on foreign-controlled AI infrastructure. Hundreds of start-ups that were integrating these frontier models into their products and workflows now face uncertainty and may have to rewrite development roadmaps, migrate to alternative platforms or rely on less capable versions. While the disruption may be temporary, it serves as a reminder that geopolitical decisions can instantly alter access to critical digital tools and shatter the myth that the world’s most advanced AI models will always remain available. Globally, the move may accelerate a trend towards countries seeking greater technological self-reliance instead of depending entirely on overseas AI platforms. India, too, must confront an uncomfortable truth. For years, the country’s largest technology companies have generated extraordinary revenues servicing Western AI systems rather than building their own. The resources, the engineering talent – much of it concentrated in Bengaluru – and the market need have existed. What has been conspicuously absent is the strategic will to invest in sovereign AI capability. The Anthropic episode should serve as a warning bell that access to frontier AI can no longer be assumed to be permanent or universal. For Bengaluru and India, the challenge now is to move beyond being service providers to the world and become creators and owners of the technologies that will define the next era. (Source: DH)

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)