What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: ​​​​The second issue

Context

A liberal reading of the surrogacy law would allow greater access for couples seeking medical assistance to conceive.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of surrogacy for a second child has reignited debate on reproductive rights and the scope of State regulation. A couple with secondary infertility has challenged the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, questioning whether restricting surrogacy to childless couples infringes on the constitutional right to privacy, personal liberty, and family autonomy.

Supreme Court on Second-Child Surrogacy: The Core Issue

• The Supreme Court’s recent observationson the legality of surrogacy for a second child have reignited debate over what laws are meant to regulate — morality, equality, or personal choice.
• The case involves a couple with secondary infertilitywho sought permission for surrogacy despite having a biological child.

Background of the Petition

• Secondary infertilityrefers to the inability to conceive or carry a pregnancy to term after having one or more biological children.
• Common causes include Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, and lifestyle factors.
• The petitioners argued that ‘infertility’, as defined under the ART and Surrogacy Acts, should not be confined only to primary infertility.
• Their advocate emphasized that reproductive choices form part of the right to privacy, and the state cannot intrude upon citizens’ personal reproductive decisions.

Legal Provision Involved

• Section 4(iii)(C)(II)of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021) allows surrogacy only for couples without any surviving child — biological, adopted, or through surrogacy.
• Exceptions: permitted only if the existing child is mentally or physically challengedor suffers from a life-threatening disorder.
• The government’s stand: surrogacy cannot be treated as a fundamental right, as it involves using another woman’s body and hence must be tightly regulated.

Court’s Initial Observation

• The bench orally noted that such restrictions may be “reasonable”under the Act.
• However, the Court agreed to examinewhether this bar on surrogacy for couples with secondary infertility violates the right to reproductive autonomy.

Policy Context and Legislative Intent

• The law’s primary goal, as stated during parliamentary debate, was to:
  • Prevent commercial and exploitative surrogacy.
  • Protect vulnerable womenfrom coercion.
  • Regulate fertility clinicsalongside the ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) Act.
• Recently, the Court also relaxed age restrictionsfor couples who had frozen embryos before the Act came into force — signaling a more flexible judicial interpretation.

Broader Ethical and Social Dimension

• India has no national law limiting the number of childrenper family.
• Some States promote a two-child normthrough incentives or disqualifications in government jobs or elections — but none impose a legal bar.
• Differentiating between primary and secondary infertility, critics argue, amounts to “splitting hairs”when the law’s true purpose is preventing exploitation, not controlling family size.

Way Forward: Towards an Inclusive Approach

• A broader interpretationof the Surrogacy Act could:
  • Uphold the reproductive rights and privacyof individuals.
  • Allow equitable accessto medical technology.
  • Continue to safeguard women from commercial exploitation.
• Ultimately, a balance between autonomy and ethicsmust guide the evolving jurisprudence on reproductive rights in India.

Conclusion

As India balances ethical safeguards with technological advancements, the Court’s interpretation will shape the future of reproductive justice. A progressive reading of the law could uphold individual autonomy while preventing commercial exploitation. Ultimately, the challenge lies in ensuring compassionate regulation—where science serves society without curbing the freedom to parenthood for those facing genuine medical or emotional constraints.

 

Editorial 2: ​​Justice in food

Context

Justice in food systems means ensuring a transition towards diets that are both healthy and affordable.

Introduction

The EAT–Lancet Commission’s new report reveals that global food systems are driving five of six breached planetary boundaries and about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. It warns that unsustainable patterns of agriculture, diet, and resource use lie at the centre of climate, biodiversity, and water crises, demanding urgent reforms in production efficiency, consumption, and policy design.

Food Systems at the Heart of Planetary Crises

• The EAT–Lancet Commission Reportunderscores that food systems drive five of the six breached planetary boundaries and contribute nearly 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• It reveals how climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress, and pollutionare deeply interlinked through the way the world produces and consumes food.
• Animal-based foodsgenerate most agricultural emissions, while grains dominate nitrogen, phosphorus, and water use, indicating uneven environmental pressures.

Unsustainable Resource Use and Systemic Risks

• Biogeochemical flowsshow a grim picture: nitrogen surplus exceeds safe limits by over two times, worsening soil and water quality.
• Without strong policy correction, mere efficiency gains can backfire—higher productivity may spur more production, negating environmental benefits.
• The Commission cautions that even comprehensive reforms—from emission cuts to dietary shifts—would barely restore global food systemsto ecological safety by 2050, especially in climate and freshwater domains.
• It questions the assumption of 127% GDP growth in 30 years, arguing for a focus on slower growthand resilience to climate shocks

India’s Dietary Patterns and Affordability Challenge

• India’s cereal-dominant dietmeets calorie needs but falls short on diversity and nutrition.
• Meeting 2050 sustainability benchmarkswill require higher intake of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts, which could raise consumer prices.
• Many regions already face fragile affordabilitydue to dependence on imported foods, exposing them to price volatility.
• Thus, justicein transition means ensuring healthier diets while keeping them affordable and culturally compatible.

Beyond Diet: Towards Systemic Food Reform

• The report warns that diet-first approachesmay fail in India, where food preferences are shaped by religion, caste, and convenience, and institutional meals (like midday meals or PDS procurement) define demand.
• Instead, the transition should involve:
  • Setting standards to limit harmful inputs(fertilizers, pesticides).
  • Using fiscal incentivesto make minimally processed foods cheaper.
  • Aligning procurement policieswith regional, affordable, and nutritious dishes.

Reforming Supply Chains and Resource Use

• Supply-side reforms are crucial to address:
  • Water scarcityand groundwater depletion.
  • Soil degradationand fossil-fuel dependence in storage and transport.
• India must gradually withdraw open-ended incentivesfor groundwater extraction and shift to sustainable irrigation models.

Ensuring Justice and Accountability

• The report highlights market concentration, weak labour safeguards, and corporate dominanceas barriers to fair reform.
• Justice-oriented transitionsrequire:
  • Collective bargaining powerfor workers and small farmers.
  • Consumer participationin regulatory and policy decisions.
• Current safeguards remain fragmentary, and must evolve into institutional guaranteesfor an equitable and sustainable food future.

Conclusion

The report highlights that transforming food systems requires more than diet shifts as it needs policy reform, resource justice, and equitable access. For India, balancing nutrition, affordability, and sustainability is key. True progress lies in combining local food diversity, sustainable irrigation, fair markets, and worker rights to create a system that safeguards both planetary health and human well-being.