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

Editorial 1: What we know about Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’, futuristic US missile defence seeking to make ‘space wars’ a reality

Context

US President Donald Trump has shortlisted a design for the ‘Golden Dome’ missile defence shield.

The Golden Dome

• First floated by Trump this January, the Golden Dome is inspired by Israel’s much lauded Iron Dome system a short-range, ground-to-air, air defence system.
• But it is far more ambitious in scale and scope, and seeks to integrate “next-generation” technologies across land, sea, and even space. Here’s what we know so far.

Making ‘space wars’ a reality

• The system will comprise, among other things, space-based sensors and interceptors.
• If this were to be true, this would make the Golden Dome the very first truly space-based weapon system.
• As of right now, the use of space technology in defence has largely been restricted to reconnaissance.
• Satellites provide crucial targeting and other data for Earth-based weapon systems such as long-range missiles, guided munitions, etc
• The proposed Golden Dome goes one step further, with the introduction of interceptors to be launched from space.
• Exactly how they will work is still unclear. But according to the initial plans, the system will comprise thousands of small satellites orbiting Earth, which will intercept an enemy missile mere moments after it is launched.
• This is not an altogether novel idea, however.
• Orbital weaponry, that is, weapon systems placed in an orbit around Earth, have been conceptualised and even designed by the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War, and even Nazi Germany during World War II.

Inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome

• As the name suggests, the idea behind Golden Dome is inspired by Israel’s much lauded Iron Dome system.
• Developed in the aftermath of the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon War,the system comprises ground-launched Tamir interceptor missiles and an array of radar installations that capture and track enemy aerial threats, from rockets, missiles, and artillery shells to low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
• But the Iron Dome’s capabilities pale in comparison to the Golden Dome.
• The Iron Dome is a short-range, ground-based aerial defence system.It does not rely on satellites for any aspect of its functionality, even tracking. It primarily relies on radars to identify and track enemy targets.
• Although Trump’s Golden Dome will likely comprise radar and other ground-based targeting systems as well, its main selling point, thus far, is the deployment of space-based systems.

Israel and US

• Israel is nearly 400 times smaller than the US, and consists of mostly flat desert terrain, which makes short-range interceptors ideal and cost-efficient for air defence.
• Moreover, its primary threats come from non-conventional actors like Hezbollah and Hamas.
• The US requires a far more expansive air defence system. Most notably, the US must be able to defend against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), technology which both China and Russia Washington’s two main geopolitical rivals possess.
• ICBMs can be launched from tens of thousands of kilometres away, and travel to space as a part of their flight trajectory.
• Tracking ICBMs necessitates the use of satellites.And while they can be neutralised using ground-based interceptors, space-based weapons have long been thought to be more effective for this task given that they re-enter Earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic speeds.

Conclusion

• Technologically speaking, the idea behind Golden Dome is not far-fetched. But it is untested, and at the moment, more of a “concept”. Right now, Golden Dome is, it’s really an idea.. This also makes projecting timelines and costs very difficult.

 

Editorial 2 : The Veeraswami case: When can a sitting judge face an FIR?

Context

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar called for revisiting the SC’s K Veeraswami judgment, which he said has “erected a scaffolding of impunity” around the judiciary.

Protection for judges

• It is fundamental to the independence of the judiciarythat judges should be able to decide cases without fear of personal consequences, including criminal prosecution.
• Disgruntled litigants, political actors, or the executive can file cases to harass or intimidate judges. Therefore, the Constitution has set a high bar for initiating action against them.
• The only procedure prescribed in the Constitution is the removal of a judge through impeachment. Under Article 124, impeachment is largely a political process, initiated by parliamentarians, which ensures due process for a judge.

Impeachment of judges

• In the 75 years since the SC and the Constitution came into being, not a single attempt at impeachment has been successful.
• Looking for alternative mechanisms to deal with complaints against judges, the SC developed the mechanism of the in-house inquiry, in which the Chief Justice of India (CJI) sets up a panel of judges to verify if there is a prima facie case against a judge.
• The CJI himself has limited powers to deal with errant judges beyond transferring or withdrawing work from the judge.
• Ultimately though, the finding of this panel, too, has to go to the executive for impeachment to be initiated.
• There has been a view that even initiating the process of impeachment has not been a sufficient deterrent. It is in this context that calls for criminal investigation against a sitting judge are made.

The Veeraswami case

• Justice K Veeraswami was the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court from May 1969 to April 1976.
• A biography by his colleague, Justice S Natarajan, noted that Justice Veeraswami, who was a very competent Judge who knew all branches of law had turned down his elevation to the SC.
• A couple of months before his retirement, Justice Veeraswami went on leave after allegations of corruption surfaced against him.
• It was alleged that the judge was in possession of pecuniary resources and property.
• Incidentally, Justice V Ramaswami, who would, in 1993, become the first judge to face impeachment proceedings in Parliament, was the son-in-law of Justice Veeraswami. Justice Ramaswami.
• The FIR against Justice Veeraswami raised larger constitutional questions on whether such a step could be initiated against a sitting judge. Justice Veeraswami moved the Madras High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR.
• In 1979, the Madras HC refused to quash the investigation in which Justice Veeraswami moved the SC in appeal, which finally decided the matter in 1991.

The SC verdict

• The SC had to decide whether a judge of a High Court or of the SC is a “public servant” for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
• The government argued that, unlike the President and Governors, there is no immunity for judges of the higher judiciary under the Constitution.
• The  SC held that while a judge can be considered a public servant for a corruption case to be registered against him, the sanction must come from the CJI.
• Ordinarily, sanction is granted by the authority that has the power to appoint the public servant.
• But the SC emphasised that there is no master and servant relationship or employer and employee relationship between a Judge and the President of India in whom the executive power of the Union is vested under the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution.
• The inclusion of the CJI, therefore, ring-fenced the prosecution of judges against executive interference.

Conclusion

• The K Veeraswami judgment represents a delicate balancing act between judicial independence and judicial accountability. By requiring the Chief Justice of India’s sanction before initiating criminal proceedings against sitting judges, the Supreme Court sought to shield the judiciary from politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions while still acknowledging the need for legal scrutiny in genuine cases of misconduct.
• However, as Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar rightly pointed out, this framework may have inadvertently created a perception of impunity by limiting external checks on judicial wrongdoing.