What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1 : Three’s a Crowd

Context: India-Pakistan border ceasefire

Introduction: Donald Trump asserts the US played a critical role in brokering the ceasefire, with VP Vance and Secretary Rubio engaging Indian counterparts. India categorically opposes third-party mediation, rendering Rubio’s proposal for neutral talks “dead on arrival.” This reflects India’s historical aversion to external intervention in bilateral disputes.

Historical Context of India’s Stance

• Early UN Interventions (1947-48)
  • Post-Partition UNSC Debates: India referred the Kashmir dispute to the UN under Lord Mountbatten’s advice but faced a pro-Pakistan stance orchestrated by the UK and tacitly supported by the Truman administration.
  • Outcome: UN resolutions favoured Pakistan, undermining India’s legalistic arguments about territorial integrity. Indian diplomacy stalled UN involvement until the 1960s.
• Post-1962 War Negotiations
  • US-UK Pressure: After India’s defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Averell Harriman, a former US ambassador to Moscow and Duncan Sandys, a British member of parliament, and the Commonwealth secretary, came to New Delhi and persuaded Nehru to initiate talks with Pakistan.
  • Result: Talks were initiated but remained inconclusive.
• 1965 War and Shift in the US Interest
  • The Lyndon B. Johnson administration lost interest in mediating Kashmir post-1965 war.
  • Legacy: Anglo-American efforts to favour Pakistan entrenched India’s distrust of third-party involvement.
• Simla Agreement (1972)
  • Bilateral Framework: Post-1971 war, India insisted on resolving disputes bilaterally (no third-party mediation) through the Simla Agreement.
  • Loophole Controversy: Clause allowing other peaceful means is interpreted by Pakistan as permitting multilateral talks, which India rejects.

Analysis of Pakistan’s Position

• Strategic Reliance on China: Pakistan’s dependence on China via CPEC has deepened, limiting its geopolitical autonomy.
• Economic Instability: Economic mismanagement, excessive defence spending, and reliance on IMF bailouts constrain Pakistan’s capacity for prolonged conflict.
• Military Domination: Civilian governments remain subservient to the military, exemplified by General Asim Munir’s anti-India stance.

Ceasefire Fragility & Future Prospects

• Ceasefire is Fragile
  • Proxy Warfare: Pakistan’s use of proxies undermines India’s claims of normalcy in Kashmir.
  • Nuclear Risks: Pakistan leverages fears of escalation to attract international mediation.
  • Historical Intransigence: Deep-rooted hostility from Pakistan’s military establishment obstructs durable peace.
• Obstacles to Resolution
  • India’s Unyielding Stance: No tolerance for third-party mediation, rooted in historical grievances.
  • Pakistan’s Incentives: Short-term gains from ceasefire (economic respite, international sympathy) but no structural shift in policy.

Conclusion: The ceasefire is a tactical pause, not a strategic breakthrough. Conflict resolution remains unlikely without bilateral trust-building or unilateral concessions, both of which are politically untenable in the current climate.

 

Editorial 2 : Shining a Light on the Court

Context: Judicial Accountability and Transparency in India

Introduction: Public declaration of assets by 21 Supreme Court judges, spearheaded by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, aims to enhance transparency. It follows allegations of corruption related to the case of unaccounted cash found at a Delhi High Court judge’s residence.

Historical Precedent: A 2009 Supreme Court resolution endorsed voluntary asset declarations, but the portal for disclosures remained inactive. Recent declarations revive this practice but remain non-mandatory.

Existing Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability

• Legal Protections for Judges
  • Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850: It shields judges from civil trials for actions taken in judicial capacity if done in good faith.
  • Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Bars civil and criminal proceedings against judges for actions related to judicial duties.
    • Exception: Actions against judges as individuals (unrelated to judicial roles) are permissible.
  • Constitutional Provisions
    • Articles 124 and 218: Govern the removal of judges for proven misconduct or incapacity through impeachment.
    • Removal of SC and HC judge requires a special majority in Parliament.
    • Internal committees (led by CJI or HC Chief Justice) handle inquiries, but outcomes are not publicly disclosed.
  • Judicial Precedents
    • K Veeraswamy Case (1991): Mandates CJI consultation before investigating SC and HC judges.
    • 2019 SC Order: Reiterated judges as public servants under RTI, but ambiguity persists on applicability of the Lokpal Act.

Challenges in Ensuring Judicial Accountability

• High Threshold for Impeachment: Complex parliamentary process discourages accountability.
• Opacity in Internal Processes:
  • Committee findings and punitive actions (e.g. transfers, resignations) are not made public.
  • Genuine corruption cases often go unaddressed due to procedural barriers.
• Voluntary Disclosures: Asset declaration remains non-binding, reducing its impact.
• Legal Ambiguities: Lack of clarity on trying judges under anti-corruption laws like the Lokpal Act.

Way Forward: Recommendations

• Mandatory Asset Disclosures: Enforce compulsory, periodic declarations with public accessibility.
• Reform Impeachment Process: Lower procedural barriers while safeguarding judicial independence.
• Transparency in Internal Committees: Publish inquiry outcomes to build public trust.
• Legal Clarity: Define applicability of Lokpal Act and RTI to judges.
• Independent Oversight Body: Create a statutory institution (e.g. Judicial Complaints Commission) to investigate misconduct.

Conclusion: Asset declarations are symbolic but insufficient for comprehensive accountability. Structural reforms are needed to balance judicial independence with public accountability. India’s judiciary must adopt global best practices while addressing domestic challenges to restore credibility.