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

 

Article 1: Digital exile

Why in news: The issue is in news due to recent blocking of social media accounts of activists and journalists critical of government policies. This has reignited debate over rising digital censorship, misuse of IT Rules, and concerns about transparency, free speech, and judicial oversight.

Key Details

Sharp rise in online censorship: Blocking cases increased from 470 (2014) to ~9,800 (2021), now extending to entire accounts.

Recent trigger: Accounts of activists and journalists blocked for criticising government policies (West Asia, LPG crisis).

Past instances: Farmers’ protests (2020–21) and BBC documentary ban (2023) show repeated use of censorship powers.

Legal framework concerns: Section 69A upheld with safeguards, but Rule 16 confidentiality weakens transparency and judicial review.

Judicial backing: Karnataka High Court ruling against Twitter (X) strengthened the government’s censorship authority.

Rising Digital Censorship in India

Over the past decade, digital governance in India has increasingly leaned toward censorship.

Recently, several social media accounts of activists and journalists were blocked for criticising the Union government and Prime Minister.

Blocking actions were linked to criticism of West Asia policies and the LPG crisis.

The scale of blocking surged significantly:

From 470 cases (2014) to about 9,800 (2021).

More recently, entire accounts—not just posts—have been restricted, especially those expressing politically critical views.

Key Instances of Government Intervention

During the 2020–21 farmers’ protests, there was a major wave of online censorship.

Some accounts were later restored after international backlash, showing both action and retreat.

In 2023, the government used emergency IT Rules to block links to a BBC documentary.

This move broadened what qualifies as a “threat to public order.”

When Twitter (now X) challenged blocking orders in the Karnataka High Court (2021–22):

The court dismissed the plea and imposed a fine on Twitter.

This decision strengthened the government’s authority to censor content.

Legal Safeguards vs. Ground Reality

In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A of the IT Act due to safeguards like:

Reasoned blocking orders

Scope for judicial review

However, in practice:

The government relies heavily on Rule 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules, which mandates confidentiality.

This prevents affected individuals from:

Accessing blocking orders

Challenging them effectively in court

The review mechanism:

Conducted by an executive committee under IT Rules 2009

Has never overturned a blocking order, raising concerns about impartiality.

Concerns Over Rights and Future Implications

The current approach:

Bypasses the right to be heard

Violates the principle of proportionality

Rule 16, though procedural, is being used to:

Override constitutional free speech protections

Limit judicial oversight

Blocking entire accounts results in:

“Digital exile”—removal from public discourse

A practice more associated with authoritarian regimes than democracies

Proposed decentralisation of blocking powers:

Could allow multiple ministries to censor independently

Risks creating a system of arbitrary and unchecked censorship without proper oversight

Conclusion

India’s digital governance is increasingly marked by expanded censorship powers that risk undermining democratic principles. While legal provisions like Section 69A were upheld with safeguards, their dilution through opaque procedures raises concerns about accountability and free speech. Ensuring transparency, proportionality, and independent oversight is essential to balance national security interests with citizens’ constitutional rights in the digital public sphere.

Descriptive question:

2009. Discuss the growing concerns of digital censorship in India in light of Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009. How do these measures impact freedom of speech and democratic accountability? (150 words, 10 marks)

 

 

Article 2: Finance Commission

Why in news: The Finance Commission remains relevant amid debates on fiscal federalism, States’ demand for higher devolution, concerns over cess and surcharges, and discussions around criteria for equitable and performance-based resource sharing.

Key Details

Recommendations are advisory in nature, but generally accepted by the government

Plays a role in maintaining fiscal balance during economic shocks

Encourages data-driven and formula-based devolution

Has evolved to address emerging areas like disaster resilience and sustainability

Constitutional Framework

The Finance Commission is established under Article 280 of the Constitution

Constituted by the President every five years or earlier if needed

Acts as a neutral, quasi-judicial body for fiscal distribution

Submits its report to the President, who lays it before Parliament

Composition & Appointment

Comprises a Chairman and four members

Members are selected based on expertise in economics, finance, administration, or law

Governed by the Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951

Supported by a dedicated secretariat for research and analysis

Core Functions

Recommends vertical devolution (Centre–State tax sharing)

Determines horizontal distribution among States using criteria like:

Income distance

Population

Area

Forest cover

Tax effort

Suggests grants-in-aid under Article 275

Recommends measures to augment State funds for Panchayats and Municipalities

Advises on disaster management financing (State Disaster Response Funds)

Significance in Indian Federalism

Acts as the backbone of fiscal federalism

Ensures equity, efficiency, and transparency in resource distribution

Helps in bridging regional and inter-state disparities

Strengthens cooperative and competitive federalism

Enhances macroeconomic stability and fiscal discipline

Recent Trends & Key Issues

Greater emphasis on performance-based incentives and reforms

Shift towards demographic performance over population size (15th FC)

Tensions between equity vs efficiency criteria

Concerns of States over shrinking fiscal autonomy and tied grants

Increasing role in local governance, climate resilience, and disaster funding

Debate on cess and surcharges reducing divisible pool

Way Forward

Ensure greater transparency in criteria selection

Strengthen consultative approach with States

Increase untied transfers for fiscal autonomy

Address concerns over cess/surcharge exclusion

Align recommendations with long-term fiscal sustainability and inclusive growth

Conclusion

The Finance Commission remains pivotal in balancing India’s fiscal federal structure by ensuring equitable and transparent resource distribution. As economic complexities grow, its role must evolve to address emerging challenges like regional inequality, climate financing, and fiscal sustainability. Strengthening its credibility, enhancing cooperative dialogue with States, and ensuring fair devolution will be essential to uphold trust in India’s federal framework.

 

 

Article 3: Trump’s Section 301 weapon, lessons from the past

Why in news: The U.S. imposed fresh tariffs after a Supreme Court setback, invoking Section 122 and launching Section 301 probes, raising concerns over WTO violations, unilateralism, and implications for India’s trade negotiations.

Key Details

U.S. imposed 10% import surcharge under Section 122 citing a questionable BOP crisis

Move challenged domestically and seen as lacking legal basis

Violates WTO norms, which allow only limited import restrictions (not tariffs)

Expanded pressure via Section 301 probes targeting multiple countries including India

Reflects rising U.S. unilateralism and weakening of WTO dispute system

U.S. Tariff Actions After Supreme Court Ruling

After the February 20 ruling, the U.S. invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act, 1974

Imposed a 10% temporary import surcharge (Feb 24 – July 24, 2026)

Justified using a Balance of Payments (BOP) crisis, though none exists

Challenged legally by 24 U.S. states for lacking valid grounds

Conflict with WTO Trade Rules

WTO allows import restrictions (not tariffs) only in genuine BOP crises

Requires serious decline in monetary reserves, which the U.S. does not face

U.S. actions appear inconsistent with global trade norms

Expansion Through Section 301 Investigations

U.S. initiated two Section 301 probes:

Manufacturing overcapacity

Forced labor imports

Targets include India, EU, China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore

Allegations are considered weak and questionable

Unilateralism and Weakening of WTO System

Section 301 allows the U.S. to unilaterally judge trade violations

WTO earlier warned this acts like a “big stick” for coercion

Since 2016, U.S. began using it for punitive tariffs (up to 25%)

U.S. also blocked WTO Appellate Body, weakening dispute resolution

Implications for India and Global Trade

Trade rules are becoming fragile and increasingly ignored

Countries like Malaysia rejected agreements with the U.S.

India is still negotiating but faces pressure from Section 301 actions

Need for:

Active participation by Indian businesses

Revival of multilateral cooperation

Coalition-building to counter U.S. dominance

Conclusion

The episode highlights the erosion of multilateral trade norms and growing unilateralism by major powers. For India, it underscores the need to actively defend its trade interests, engage in ongoing investigations, and strengthen coalitions with like-minded countries. Reviving the WTO dispute settlement system and ensuring rule-based trade remains essential to prevent arbitrary economic coercion and maintain global trade stability.

Descriptive question:

1. Critically examine the impact of Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act on the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework and developing countries like India. (250 words, 15 marks)