Editorial

In the Supreme Court’s ruling that a minor rape survivor cannot be forced to complete her pregnancy against her will, there is a welcome affirmation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom of individuals that existing laws do not fully recognise. The Court’s ruling came in a case involving a 15-year-old survivor of rape and the plea to terminate her pregnancy in its 30th week. Notably, the Court also recommended an amendment to the law to remove the time limit on terminating unwanted pregnancies when it involves minor rape victims. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi refused to entertain a petition filed by the government against the Court’s recent decision to allow the termination of the pregnancy. The government and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) had argued that the pregnancy was advanced, making its termination illegal and raising safety concerns. The apex court said the decision regarding the termination of pregnancy was for the survivor and her parents to take, not the doctors or the government. It said the government could help the survivor by providing her counsellors. While ruling that unwanted pregnancies cannot be burdened on survivors, the Court underlined the “citizen’s autonomy of choice,” which the State must respect. In its original form, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prescribed a gestational time limit for conducting abortions. This was done in the interest of the pregnant women’s health. Subsequent amendments extended this time limit – now it is at 24 weeks of gestation – and increased the number of categories under which women could seek abortion. However, opposition to abortions and these amendments has persisted; some of this resistance comes from entrenched societal attitudes. With its ruling, the Court has emphatically rejected these attitudes. Its message is clear: “Law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving times.” A progressive society cannot base its laws on outdated ideas and attitudes. The legal framework must factor in the complex lived realities of an unwed, minor mother and her child in a patriarchal society. Amending the law will be a critical step towards ensuring real autonomy of choice for her. The law should accommodate her and protect her dignity as an individual; it cannot be used as a tool to restrict her choices. By prioritising her interests, the Supreme Court has made an important call to abide by constitutional morality, which puts the right to choice of individuals at its centre. (Source: DH)

The Assembly elections in four states and one Union Territory saw a big vote for change in three states and a mandate for continuity in one state and the UT. West Bengal and Tamil Nadu saw tectonic political shifts, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) poised for power in the former and the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), led by actor Vijay, set to dethrone the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in the latter. Kerala will see the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) return to power on a bumper vote and a sweeping rejection of the CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF). The victory of the BJP-led coalition in Assam and the NDA coalition (comprising the BJP and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) in Puducherry was expected, and the incumbents improved their positions. For the BJP, West Bengal has been a final frontier among the major states, where it has crossed the two-thirds majority. The party was nowhere in the state’s electoral landscape in 2011, but has steadily improved its position since then, using a combination of political nous and assertions of power. It attracted leaders from other parties, used its power at the Centre  effectively, and successfully adopted social engineering as a political strategy. Polarising narratives have also been part of the playbook, placed as a counter to the Trinamool Congress (TMC)’s traditional Muslim vote base. The BJP gained from branding the TMC as anti-Hindu and supportive of illegal immigrants. Its campaign was largely pegged to issues such as undocumented migration, corruption, unemployment, and lack of women’s safety. The Election Commission of India (ECI)’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls may have hit the TMC’s numbers. However, none of these factors would have affected the TMC if there were no strong resentment against the party, which has ruled the state for three terms. Among the youth, the anxieties over the lack of opportunities are palpable. Mamata Banerjee’s support among women seems to have waned. Her loss in Bhabanipur reflects a collective shift in the voters’ mood. The RG Kar Medical College rape and murder dented the government’s image among women, especially among urban women. It is in this climate of discontent that the BJP made promises of development, good governance, and secure borders. This message of change, delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, appears to have found takers across sections. A Hindu consolidation in many constituencies is also likely to have helped the party. Tamil Nadu has witnessed electoral history, with the DMK led by M K Stalin losing heavily to a party formed two years ago and considered capable only of a marginal impact. This stunning defeat shows that the sentiments against the government were strong over issues such as corruption, nepotism, and misgovernance. Stalin’s defeat in his stronghold in Kolathur best exemplifies the trend. Support for the DMK appears to be eroding significantly across all sections, especially among Dalit and minority groups. In a significant turnaround, a new party riding on the charisma and mass appeal of its leader has toppled a government and a political model built on the Dravidian identity. Tamil Nadu has always had strong links between its politics and its cinema. Vijay was at the right place to seize the moment. Notably, this is for the first time in six decades that a party and a leader without any stated credentials of the Dravidian ideology is rising to power in the state. The AIADMK, which has been grappling with a leadership crisis and political setbacks since J Jayalalitha’s death in 2016, has lost further ground. For the Congress, there is relief in the big win in Kerala, where the UDF led by the party registered a victory with two-thirds majority. The LDF government, in power for 10 years in a state that has historically seen rival alliances alternating every five years, has been hit by a strong wave of anti-government sentiment. The ruling front suffered heavy reverses, with many of its ministers and senior leaders losing their seats. A consolidation of votes in the Muslim and Christian communities appears to have pushed the mood further towards the UDF, leading to a sweep for the opposition bloc. For the first time, the BJP won three seats in the state – a commendable show, even though the party had hoped for bigger numbers. In Assam, the electorate has extended its endorsement of the incumbent BJP, which has been in power in the state for 10 years. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sharma has followed a policy of polarisation, both in governance and stated political positions. The no-holds-barred approach has helped the BJP to improve its position in a state that is already divided along communal lines. On the national stage, the poll results point to a weakening Opposition. Both the TMC and the DMK have been pillars of the opposition grouping, with Mamata and Stalin among the staunchest of critics of the BJP and its allies. They stand diminished now. Their defeat also signals the enfeeblement of regional political forces that were considered capable of resisting the BJP onslaught. States such as Maharashtra and Bihar have already witnessed the decline and fragmentation of regional parties. The 2026 results risk extending this pattern. In the Left’s defeat in Kerala, there is another blow to the larger national opposition: for the first time in five decades, no government in India will have a Communist presence. (Source: DH)

Stampedes happen in India with alarming frequency, and they continue to be seen as accidents, like the ones that happen on our roads. But stampedes are not accidental and are caused by predictable, controllable factors, like many road accidents are. The stampede at a temple in Srikakulam, in Andhra Pradesh, which led to the death of at least nine people, mostly women and children, was also preventable. This year, India has lost scores of lives in stampedes – from the Kumbh tragedy through incidents at the New Delhi railway station, the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, and a political rally in Karur. There have been other incidents that claimed fewer lives or were not reported. Stampedes are invariably traced to overcrowding, poor preparedness, inadequate infrastructure, and lapses in safety and security arrangements, though the triggers could be different in each case. The Srikakulam incident is reported to have happened when a railing erected for crowd control collapsed. It caused people to fall off stairs, leading to chaos and trampling. The newly built, privately-owned temple received on Saturday five times the number of devotees it receives on a normal day – the railings and barricades in place were not enough to control the movement of people. The administration and the police have said they were not informed of the event, but it is their responsibility to take note of unusual crowding and ensure that order is maintained. The statement of the owner of the temple that it was “an act of God” shows how such incidents are viewed by many. Guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority and in the National Building Code comprise norms and courses of action to prevent stampedes and to handle them if they occur. Law enforcement personnel undergo training to tackle such situations. Still, these incidents keep occurring. Most of the stampedes happen in religious congregations, political rallies, and entertainment venues. The organisers often fail to assess the crowd volume, and even when they do, facilities to ensure orderly movement fall short. Crowd control is often left to untrained volunteers, and the authorities are found wanting in discharging their responsibilities. After every major stampede, inquiries are instituted, but punishment for lapses is rare. The fallout does not inform preparedness, lessons are not learnt, and the cycle of mishaps continues. Investigations are also found to be politicised, as in the case of the Karur stampede, failing to fix accountability and delaying the truth. Deterrence is key – the approach has to shift from an acceptance of inevitability to strong preventive measures backed up by quick follow-through action against the offenders. (Source: DH)