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

Editorial 1: ​​​Lawfare politics

Context

The integrity of federal principles should not be compromised under the pretext of enhancing probity

Introduction

The Centre has introduced three bills, including a constitutional amendment, claiming to enhance probity and accountability for the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers. While the proposals allow removal upon detention for serious offences, critics argue they risk political misuse, centralisation of power, and undermining federal principles, raising questions about the true intent behind these rushed legislative measures.

Overview of the New Bills

• Three bills, including a constitutional amendment, were introduced hurriedly by the Centretoward the end of the Parliament session.
• Stated objective: improve probity and accountabilityfor the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers.
• Key provision:
  • Any of these officials lose their position if detainedby a law enforcement agency for an offence punishable with 5+ years imprisonment.
  • They can return to office upon acquittal.
• Observation:The stated intent of enhancing accountability is met with scepticism by legal experts and the Opposition.

Concerns Over Centralisation of Power

• Opposition and legal experts argue these bills concentrate power in the Centre.
• Although the law claims to apply equally to the Prime Minister, this is questionable, as:
  • All investigative agencies are under central administrative control.
  • Central agencies are unlikely to detain the Prime Minister.
  • Several Opposition Chief Ministers have already been arrested, indicating selective application.

Aspect	Prime Minister	State/UT Chief Ministers	Observation
Likely detention by central agency	Unlikely	Likely	Indicates potential political bias
Administrative control	Central	Central	Unequal enforcement potential
Political impact	Low	High	Could target opposition parties

Legal and Judicial Implications

• Police are increasingly eager to arrest; bail is harder due to:
  • Harsh provisions in laws like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
  • Judicial diffidence in granting bail.
• While corruption is a societal threat, combating it should not violate principles of justice.
• Pattern observed:
  • Individuals targeted while in opposition.
  • Same individuals protected once aligned with the ruling party (BJP).

Risks to Democracy and Federalism

• If enacted, bills allow removal of elected officials by mere police action, without:
  • Fair trial
  • Judicial conviction
• Likely practical application: only State/Union Territory governments.
• Implications:
  • Violation of federal principles
  • Veto power for State Governorsover elected legislatures
  • Presumption of guilt until proven innocent
  • Disregard for the verdict of the electorate

Concern	Current Law	Proposed Bills	Implication
Removal of officeholders	Only after conviction	Possible after detention	Prejudicial, undermines justice
Protection of federalism	Respected	Weakened	Centre gains excessive control
Respect for electorate	Preserved	Compromised	Undermines democratic mandate

Conclusion

While tackling corruption is essential, the proposed bills may weaken justice, disregard democratic mandates, and empower the Centre arbitrarily. The risk of selective enforcement against opposition leaders and erosion of federalism suggests that, rather than ensuring accountability, these measures could undermine democracy, legal fairness, and the principles of justice in India.

 

Editorial 2: ​​Justice is not about ‘teaching someone a lesson’

Context

The judiciary must resist justifying custodial brutality, even when it is presented under the moral pretext of correction or deterrence.

Introduction

In a recent custodial death case in Chhattisgarh, the High Court made an observation that should alarm anyone who values the rule of law. The Court noted that the police officers responsible seemed motivated to “teach a lesson” to the victim for alleged public misbehaviour, highlighting a grave breach of accountability and justice. The facts are as disturbing as the language used. A Dalit man, arrested for alleged misbehaviour, died in custody just hours after a medical check reported no injuries, yet the postmortem revealed 26 wounds, exposing severe police brutality. While the trial court convicted four officers of murder, the High Court reduced the charge to culpable homicide, reasoning that there was no direct intent to kill, though the officers had full knowledge that their assault could cause death.

Judicial Reasoning and Custodial Violence

• A statement in the High Court’s opinionreflects a deeply problematic institutional mindset that rationalises state violence as a tolerable tool for discipline.
• The judiciary must resistjustifying police brutality, especially under the moral guise of correction or deterrence.
• “Teaching a lesson”is neither a constitutional principle nor a standard of justice, but rooted in vigilante logicwhere violence begets violence and law is enforced through fear, not rights or procedures.
• The conceptual framingof custodial violence matters more than sentence commutation, as it risks normalising torture by portraying it as misguided discipline rather than systemic failure.
• Language shapes legal reasoning, which in turn shapes policy; accepting teaching a lessonas a partial justification emboldens officers and signals that future actions may be seen as excessive zeal, not unlawful conduct.

Violence as a caste-coded enforcement

• The identity of the victim, a Scheduled Castemember, is often erased in legal frameworks.
• The trial courtacquitted the prime accused under the SC/ST Act (1989), and the High Court did not intervene.
• By demanding specific proofof caste motivation, the Court ignored the lived reality of caste power.
• The death of a Dalit manbeaten in police custody by upper caste officers in rural India reflects a broader pattern of caste-coded enforcement, not an isolated incident.
• India’s jurisprudenceon the SC/ST Act is narrowly interpreted:
  • Courts require explicit evidencethat violence occurred because of caste.
  • This overlooks the role of structural powerin motivating and enabling violence.
  • Demanding overt slurs or declared caste intentoften results in denial of justice in cases the Act was meant to address.
• Custodial violencein India is widely recognized:
  • Supreme Court judgments(e.g., Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs State of West Bengal, State of U.P., Munshi Singh Gautam vs State of M.P.) stress the need for procedural safeguards, transparency, and limits on police force.
  • Despite these guidelines, deaths in custodycontinue at alarming rates, disproportionately affecting Dalits, Adivasis, and the poor.
  • Compliance is sporadic, enforcement weak, and investigationsare often conducted by the very institutions implicated in abuse.

The path for judicial integrity

• Judicial language matters: Courts must hold individuals accountableand scrutinize institutional norms that enable violence.
• Phrases like “to teach a lesson”imply that state brutality is sometimes understandable, sending a dangerous message that certain people may deserve violence.
• The policeare constitutional functionaries, not agents of correction through coercion; justifying custodial violence for minor offences, such as public nuisance, blurs legal boundaries.
• “Teaching a lesson” is not justice; it undermines a system based on proportionality, dignity, and due process. Deterrencemust come from legal punishment, not state-sanctioned force.
• Courts that validate such reasoningrisk weakening the constitutional order they are sworn to uphold.
• Structural change, not symbolic outrage, is essential:
  • Custodial violencemust always be recognized as criminal, never disciplinary.
  • The SC/ST Actmust be rigorously enforced wherever social power is weaponized.
  • Independent accountability mechanismsmust be strengthened, and procedural safeguards made enforceable.

Conclusion

Most importantly, the judiciary must not provide moral cover to extra-legal instincts. The notion that public misbehaviour warrants private punishment is not justice, but a form of authoritarianism in slow motion. A Constitution founded on dignity, equality, and the rule of law cannot coexist with a justice system that condones “lessons” written in bruises.