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

Editorial 1: ​​​​Burden of proof

Context

Only the voter’s choice remains confidential and  not the fact of whether they voted or appeared on the electoral roll.

Introduction

Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of large-scale irregularities in the 2024 Haryana Assembly elections have reignited concerns over the integrity of India’s electoral system. His claims of “fake” and duplicate voters expose deep flaws in voter-roll management and raise uncomfortable questions about transparency, accountability, and the Election Commission’s capacity to ensure a level playing field in democratic contests.

Allegations Over Haryana Electoral Roll Integrity

Background

• The Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, has levelled serious accusationsregarding the 2024 Haryana Assembly election, reigniting debate on electoral transparency in India.
• His claim highlights alleged irregularities in voter rolls, which the Election Commission of India (ECI)insists can only be rectified through the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

Key Allegations Raised

Type of Irregularity	Estimated Numbers (as claimed)	Description
Duplicate Voters	5.21 lakh	Same individual registered multiple times across booths
Invalid Voters	93,174	Entries with incomplete or unverifiable details
Fake/Blurred Photos	1.24 lakh	Photos manipulated or unclear, including cases of non-existent identities
Example Cited	1 Brazilian model’s photo used 22 times	Alleged misuse of online image across polling booths

• Nearly 25 lakh votes— roughly 1 in 8 voters — were “fake” in Haryana’s rolls.
• He accused the ECI of colluding with the ruling BJP, alleging bulk deletion and addition of votersthat tilted the results in BJP’s favour.

ECI’s Defence and Response

• The ECI defended itselfusing technical and procedural grounds, arguing that:
  • Complaints should have been raised within stipulated timelines.
  • Other grievances could be resolved via election petitions.
• However, these responses failed to restore public confidence, as they appeared defensive rather than transparent.

Larger Concerns and Public Trust Deficit

• The Congress’s claimsdo not constitute conclusive proof of electoral fraud, but they underscore systemic lapses in voter-roll management.
• The ECI’s opacityin handling electoral data has deepened mistrust among citizens and political parties alike.

Issue of Transparency and Privacy

Issue	Current ECI Stand	Criticism
Access to booth-level video recordings	Restricted, citing voter privacy	Critics argue that only the vote choice should remain secret, not the process
Access to electoral rolls & process data	Limited public access	Fuels perception of concealment and bias
Trust-building measures	Largely procedural	Seen as inadequate to address the trust defici

Way Forward

• Transparency in electoral data— Booth-level footage and voter lists (excluding the vote cast) should be open public records.
• Secrecy of ballot, not the process, should be the core principle.
• The ECI must proactively publish audit findingsof the SIR to restore credibility and reinforce the integrity of India’s electoral system.

Conclusion
While the Congress’s charges are yet to be conclusively proven, they highlight the urgent need for electoral transparency and institutional reform. The Election Commission of India (ECI) must rebuild public trust by making booth-level data and verification processes open to scrutiny. **Secrecy must protect only the vote not the process – if India’s democracy is to preserve its credibility and moral authority.

 

Editorial 2: ​​​Greater openness

Context

India must preserve and strengthen global confidence in its wildlife management and conservation practices, not risk eroding it through opacity or complacency.

Introduction

The Vantara project in Jamnagar, run by the Reliance Foundation, has drawn scrutiny after a Supreme Court-appointed SIT cleared it of any wrongdoing in the import of wild animals. However, subsequent remarks by the CITES committee have revived questions over India’s wildlife permit system, transparency, and compliance with global norms governing endangered species trade and conservation.

The Vantara Project and Supreme Court Inquiry

• In September 2025, a Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT)submitted its report on the Vantara project — a private zoo run by the Reliance Foundation in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
• The SIT concluded that the project was fully compliantwith laws governing wildlife import and care, holding valid permits and maintaining facilities for over 30,000 animals.
• It termed any criticism of Vantara’s operations “unjustified.”
• The Supreme Courtdid not make the full report public, but attached a brief summary with its operative remarksin the official order.

CITES Committee Intervention and Global Scrutiny

Institution	Role / Action	Key Observation
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)	Conducted a visit to Jamnagar soon after SIT’s submission	Investigated permits, animal acquisition, and zoo infrastructure
SIT (India)	Submitted confidential report to Supreme Court	Found Vantara compliant and law-abiding
CITES Committee Report	Publicly released findings	Praised Vantara’s infrastructure but raised doubts about permit documentation

Note: The CITES committee’s concern was not directed at Vantara’s management, but at India’s wildlife permitting system itself.

Concerns Over Permit Documentation

• The CITES reportflagged discrepancies between Indian records and those of exporting countries:
  • Example: The Czech Republicclaimed it had sold animals to Indian entities linked to Vantara.
  • Vantara denied any “sale,” stating that payments were limited to insurance and transport costs.
• This distinction is crucial — Indian law prohibits commercial procurementof wild animals by zoos.
• Hence, clarity in documentationbecomes essential to ensure compliance with wildlife trade laws.

Legal and Institutional Implications

Issue	Indian Legal Position	CITES Expectation
Commercial purchase of animals	Prohibited under Indian zoo and wildlife laws	Allowed if transparently recorded and traceable
Traceability of animals	Often weak due to inconsistent records	Must be documented and verifiable across borders
International coordination	Limited inter-governmental dialogue	Countries must actively engage with counterparts to resolve discrepancies

Transparency and Global Trust Deficit

• The SIT’s undisclosed findingsand CITES’s open-ended reservations together highlight a trust gap in India’s wildlife governance.
• Partial disclosure reduces international confidencein India’s biodiversity protection credentials.
• As a megadiverse country, India cannot afford reputational damage to its wildlife management system.

Way Forward

• Full disclosureof the SIT report to strengthen public and global confidence.
• Inter-agency coordinationbetween Indian authorities and foreign wildlife bodies to verify animal traceability.
• Transparent permit systemsensuring all imports are non-commercial, lawful, and well-documented.
• Institutional strengtheningof India’s wildlife governance to balance developmental interests with global conservation norms.

Conclusion

While Vantara’s operations appear legally sound and professionally managed, the CITES observations underline deeper lapses in India’s wildlife governance. Partial disclosure and procedural opacity erode global trust in India’s conservation regime. As a megadiverse nation, India must pursue transparent permit mechanisms, inter-agency coordination, and international accountability to safeguard both its biodiversity reputation and its moral authority in wildlife protection.