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

 

Editorial 1: ​Building bridges

Context

The advantages of cross-border CBDC payments are likely to outweigh the associated costs.

Introduction

India’s push for CBDC-based cooperation within BRICS reflects a careful attempt to balance financial innovation, regulatory caution, and geopolitical strategy. Guided by the RBI’s conservative yet forward-looking stance, the proposal seeks to harness blockchain efficiency while limiting the systemic risks associated with private cryptocurrencies.

RBI’s Proposal on BRICS CBDC Linkages

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is reportedly exploring ways to encourage BRICS nations to interlink their Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

It has advised the Union government to place this proposal on the agenda of the 2026 BRICS Summit, to be hosted by India.

This move builds naturally on India’s G-20 presidency in 2023, which emphasised global cooperation and standardisation in digital currencies.

RBI’s Consistent Position on Cryptocurrencies

The RBI has remained highly cautious about private cryptocurrencies, repeatedly advocating a ban on them.

At the same time, it has been supportive of CBDCs, highlighting their multiple policy and payment uses.

This stance reflects a balanced approach—acknowledging the risks of crypto assets while recognising the utility of blockchain technology.

Risks of Private Cryptocurrencies

Widespread use of private cryptocurrencies exposes the public to extreme price volatility.

There is a high potential for fraud, misuse, and financial manipulation.

Unregulated adoption can lead to significant erosion of household wealth, making a strong regulatory response necessary.

Advantages of CBDCs

CBDCs carry a sovereign guarantee, making them fundamentally safer than private crypto assets.

They are non-interest bearing, which discourages speculative investment.

Their design ensures they function primarily as a payment instrument, not as a vehicle for returns.

Limited Domestic Utility in India

Within India, the scope for a retail CBDC remains limited.

The UPI ecosystem already provides fast, reliable, and widely adopted digital payment infrastructure.

Given UPI’s massive head start, a domestic CBDC is unlikely to achieve comparable penetration.

Rationale for Cross-Border CBDC Use

Using CBDCs for international payments is a more practical and strategic approach for India.

Cross-border transactions are often channels for black money and money laundering.

Blockchain-based systems can enhance transparency, traceability, and accountability in such flows.

Potential BRICS Payment Framework

A BRICS-wide CBDC arrangement could mandate links with national identity systems or tax authorities.

Such integration would create immutable transaction records, capturing origins and destinations of funds.

This would significantly strengthen financial oversight across borders.

Geopolitical and Strategic Implications

CBDC-based payments could ease transactions with countries like Russia and Iran, which lack access to SWIFT.

However, reducing reliance on the US dollar may provoke backlash from the United States, including threats of additional tariffs.

With steep tariffs already in place, India must assess whether further penalties would materially harm its interests.

On balance, the economic and transparency gains from cross-border CBDCs may still outweigh the geopolitical costs.

Conclusion

While domestic CBDC adoption in India may remain limited due to UPI’s dominance, its use in cross-border payments offers clear advantages. Enhanced transparency, reduced illicit flows, and alternatives to SWIFT could outweigh geopolitical frictions, making CBDC collaboration a strategically sound choice.

 

Editorial 2: ​Lowering the age of juvenility for crimes is a step back

Context

The Private Member’s Bill could reshape India’s juvenile justice system, influencing fairness and rehabilitation.

Introduction

Nearly a decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reshaped India’s juvenile justice framework by introducing the “transfer system”, a Private Member’s Bill introduced in December 2025 seeks to amend the law by lowering the age threshold from 16 to 14 years for children accused of heinous offences—defined as crimes carrying a minimum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment or more. If enacted, the amendment could expose 14–15-year-olds to adult criminal trials and incarceration, undermining the core principles of care, rehabilitation, and reintegration in favour of retributive justice.

Philosophical and Legal Flaws in the Transfer System

Indian juvenile justice is founded on the belief that children are developmentally distinct from adults and capable of reform.

After the 2012 Delhi gang rape, the JJ Act, 2015 adopted a more punitive approach by introducing the transfer system.

Under this system, 16–18-year-olds accused of heinous offences undergo a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to decide adult trial eligibility.

This shift lacked support from empirical evidence and was opposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which found it inconsistent with domestic and international juvenile justice standards.

Arbitrariness and Risks of Expansion

The transfer system has led to procedural confusion, subjective decision-making, and arbitrariness.

Assessments focus on vague notions like mental capacity or understanding consequences, diverting attention from developmental realities and social context.

There are no reliable tools to determine adult-level criminal capacity or retrospectively assess a child’s mental state at the time of offence.

Decisions often rely on irrelevant factors such as demeanour during arrest or expressions of fear or remorse.

As a result, similarly placed children face unequal outcomes, undermining rehabilitation and reinforcing discrimination.

Extending this system to children as young as 14 risks entrenching institutional arbitrariness at a far more vulnerable stage of childhood.

Claims of Rising Adolescent Crime and the Data

The Bill argues that serious offences by 14–16-year-olds are increasing and that lowering the age threshold is needed for deterrence and accountability.

NCRB data (2023) shows that cases involving Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) accounted for only 0.5% of total crimes.

Of all CICLs apprehended, 79% were aged 16–18, while only 21% were between 12–16, contradicting claims that younger adolescents are driving serious crime.

Structural Vulnerability and Systemic Failure

Adolescent offending often stems from poverty, neglect, and social inequality, not inherent criminal intent.

Many CICLs are simultaneously children in need of care and protection, reflecting unmet welfare obligations.

Lowering the age threshold would deepen children’s exposure to punitive justice, without improving the system’s ability to distinguish culpability from vulnerability.

Contact with adult criminal processes disrupts education, harms cognitive and psychological development, and creates lasting stigma.

Despite legal safeguards, children continue to face illegal detention and placement in adult prisons, highlighting that the real issue lies in systemic failures and weak accountability, not in the age threshold.

Fix the System, Not the Child

The Bill pushes the juvenile justice framework toward punishment at an earlier age, instead of prioritising prevention and support.

It diverts attention from the need for early intervention, stronger family and educational systems, and accessible mental health care.

Blurring the line between adolescence and adulthood weakens core child rights principles, including the best interests of the child and equality before the law.

Meaningful reform requires systemic strengthening, not the criminalisation of childhood vulnerability.

Conclusion

If the aim is to address serious harm in a meaningful way, the solution lies not in stripping children of legal protection, but in strengthening the institutions and community systems designed to support them before harm occurs. Treating systemic failures as grounds for harsher punishment of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICLs) does not resolve underlying issues; it simply shifts the burden onto those least capable of bearing its consequences.