Daily Editorial Analysis 30 September 2026

The United Nations’ Long Road to Restoring Trust

Context

• The United Nations (UN) was established after the Second World War to create predictability, dialogue and rules in international relations.
• In a world historically marked by mistrust and conflict, it provided an institutional framework for diplomacy, international law and collective action.
• However, its effectiveness increasingly depends on restoring trust among member states and global citizens.
• The 81st UN General Assembly’s theme, Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: a UN that delivers for all, reflects concerns over the organisation’s effectiveness, accountability and representativeness.

Surveys about the UN

• A UN Foundation poll found that 52% of respondents believed the organisation was struggling to deliver results and supported deep structural reform.
• More than half felt that the UN struggled to enforce international law and protect human rights and was dominated by powerful countries.
• Another poll found that only 58% believed the UN could lead efforts to solve global problems.
• Several factors explain this erosion of confidence.

Reasons Behind Erosion of Confidence

• Security Council Deadlock
  • The deadlock has weakened faith in collective international action.
  • The frequent use of the veto by permanent members can prevent decisive responses to crises.
  • The General Assembly’s requirement that permanent members explain their vetoes reflects growing dissatisfaction with this imbalance.
• Concerns over Institutional Accountability
  • Problems involving recruitment, procurement, resource allocation and peacekeeper misconduct reveal weaknesses in oversight.
  • Punishing individuals without addressing systemic failures creates doubts about the organisation’s commitment to accountability.
• Excessive Dependence on Financially Powerful States
  • It raises concerns about the neutrality and independence of UN institutions.
  • Financial contributions can translate into disproportionate influence within the UN system. Wealthier countries may shape recruitment, programme funding and institutional priorities.
  • Heavy dependence on particular donors can create doubts about whether recommendations to developing countries are completely neutral.
  • Financial dependence may also encourage bureaucratic risk aversion, particularly when officials fear upsetting powerful contributors.
  • Greater transparency in programme expenditure is therefore essential, especially for citizens of beneficiary countries.
• Unequal Representation
  • Developing countries constitute about 84% of the world’s population but hold only 44% of UN civil-service leadership positions.
  • This creates a disconnect between where the UN delivers programmes and where institutional power is concentrated.
  • Greater participation of the Global South in leadership, decision-making and institutional locations would make the UN more representative.

The Way Forward

• Reverse the shrinking space
  • Despite its shortcomings, the UN remains a major provider of humanitarian assistance.
  • It delivered humanitarian assistance and protection to approximately 98 million people in 2025–26, demonstrating its continuing importance.
  • However, questions remain regarding aid effectiveness and the role of local actors in programme delivery.
  • In conflicts such as Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, the UN has undertaken tactical interventions to address humanitarian and environmental risks.
  • Yet such interventions have not consistently developed into sustained peacebuilding and dialogue between belligerents.
  • One concern is the excessive centralisation of peace-making.
  • Greater authority for regional offices, field personnel and local actors could allow the UN to identify opportunities for dialogue more rapidly and develop context-specific peace initiatives.
• Restoring Trust, Funding Arrangements, Equal Representation
  • Restoring trust requires greater transparency, stronger oversight and meaningful accountability.
  • Recruitment, procurement and resource allocation must become more open and independently scrutinised.
  • Funding arrangements should reduce excessive dependence on individual donors.
  • The UN must also address the representation deficit of the Global South and give developing countries greater influence in leadership and decision-making.
  • Local communities and organisations should receive a larger role in humanitarian and development programmes.
  • Finally, the organisation should strengthen preventive diplomacy, decentralised peacebuilding and conflict mediation.
  • Its credibility will increasingly depend on its ability to convert humanitarian interventions into sustained political dialogue.

Conclusion

• The UN’s trust deficit reflects concerns over effectiveness, accountability and representation.
• Yet declining confidence makes institutional renewal more necessary, not less.
• The organisation remains humanity’s most important framework for replacing unilateral power politics with rules-based international cooperation.
• The transformation envisaged by the 81st General Assembly must therefore begin with restoring institutional trust.
• A more transparent, representative, accountable and responsive UN can better serve global citizens and strengthen the foundations of international peace and cooperation.

The United Nations’ Long Road to Restoring Trust FAQs

Q1. Why was the UN established?
Ans. The UN was established to promote international peace, dialogue and rules-based cooperation.

Q2. Why has trust in the UN declined?
Ans. Trust has declined because of Security Council deadlock, weak accountability, financial influence and unequal representation.

Q3. How does financial dependence affect the UN?
Ans. Financial dependence can create concerns about the neutrality and independence of UN institutions.

Q4. Why is Global South representation important?
Ans. Greater Global South representation can make the UN more inclusive, legitimate and representative.

Q5. How can the UN restore trust?
Ans. The UN can restore trust through greater transparency, accountability, representation and decentralised peacebuilding.

Source: The Hindu

Surveillance is Not the Only Privacy Issue

Context

• India is entering an era in which surveillance is no longer confined to the State.
• Facial recognition, biometric databases, private technology companies, social-media networks, deepfakes and electoral verification increasingly interact to determine how citizens are identified, monitored and treated.
• Recent controversies involving deepfakes and doxxing, facial recognition during protests and electoral-roll revision reveal a common challenge: personal information now moves across governments, corporations, digital platforms and anonymous actors, while legal safeguards remain fragmented.

Forms of Surveillance

• State Surveillance in Public Spaces
  • Facial recognition, drones, AI-enabled devices and command vehicles can identify individuals rapidly.
  • Allegations surrounding surveillance during protests have raised questions about biometric data collection, private-company involvement and the limits of police surveillance.
• Digital Identification and Punishment
  • Protest participants have reportedly faced doxxing, with personal information circulated alongside threats.
  • Unlike physical hoardings used in the past, digital platforms can amplify personal information instantly and globally.
  • A photograph can become a gateway to identity, location and personal vulnerability.
• Administrative Surveillance Through Identity Verification
  • Electoral-roll revision requires authorities to determine who qualifies to remain registered.
  • Although the Supreme Court has recognised the Election Commission’s authority to examine citizenship for this limited purpose, large-scale verification can nevertheless affect democratic participation and access to voting rights.

Privacy in the Age of Interconnected Surveillance

• India has a strong constitutional foundation for privacy.
• In S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Supreme Court Bench recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right.
• However, the framework largely developed around state action, whereas today’s digital environment involves multiple public and private actors.
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits the Union government to exempt state instrumentalities from its provisions through notification on specified grounds, including security of the State and public order.
• This creates questions about the consistency of privacy protection across different surveillance activities.
• Personal information may be collected by government agencies, processed by private contractors, stored by technology companies and circulated through online networks.
• Consequently, the chain of responsibility becomes difficult to identify, weakening accountability.

The Pegasus Question and Accountability

• The Pegasus controversy demonstrates the difficulties created by cross-border and privately supplied surveillance technologies.
• A Supreme Court-appointed technical committee found malware in some examined devices but could not conclusively establish that it was Pegasus. It also noted the Union government’s lack of cooperation.
• The larger issue extends beyond one spyware controversy. When governments rely on private or foreign technology providers, accountability can become fragmented.
• If police collect data, a private company stores it and online actors disseminate related information, responsibility cannot remain legally undefined.

A Long History of Making People Identifiable

• The impulse to make populations identifiable predates the digital age.
• In 1858, William Herschel began using handprints on contracts, while fingerprint classification was later developed in Bengal.
• What has changed is the scale, speed, precision and interconnectedness of identification.
• Aadhaar, facial recognition, electoral databases and social-media platforms represent different forms of converting individual identity into continuously processable data.

From Isolated Surveillance to a Surveillance Ecosystem

• Modern surveillance should therefore be understood as an interconnected ecosystem rather than isolated acts.
• Governments possess regulatory and coercive authority; private companies provide technological infrastructure; social-media platforms enable amplification; and administrative databases influence access to civic rights.
• A citizen may be identified by a camera, linked to personal information, exposed online and subsequently threatened.
• Thus, privacy cannot be protected merely by regulating individual technologies.
• The entire data chain, from collection and storage to processing, sharing and dissemination, requires accountability.

The Way Forward

• India needs a comprehensive surveillance framework based on clear legal authority, necessity and proportionality.
• Citizens should have meaningful information about how their data is collected, processed and shared.
• Private companies handling sensitive or state-generated information should face clear obligations concerning data security, retention and access.
• Independent oversight should also be strengthened to ensure that surveillance powers remain subject to scrutiny.
• Electoral and identity-verification processes require transparent criteria, accessible remedies and safeguards against wrongful exclusion.
• Technological efficiency cannot substitute for procedural fairness.

Conclusion

• India’s surveillance challenge is no longer simply about whether the State can watch citizens.
• It concerns how information moves between the State, corporations, digital platforms and individuals, and how these systems can reinforce one another.
• Constitutional privacy protection remains essential, but technological change requires a broader approach to accountability.
• Greater technological capacity to identify citizens must be matched by equally strong safeguards for dignity, autonomy, security and democratic participation.
• Otherwise, legal protection may remain strongest where surveillance is simplest, while complex forms of watching continue to operate in institutional gaps.

Surveillance is Not the Only Privacy Issue FAQs

Q1. What are the three forms of surveillance discussed?
Ans. The three forms are State surveillance, digital identification, and administrative identity verification.

Q2. Why is Puttaswamy important?
Ans. The Puttaswamy judgment recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right.

Q3. What makes modern surveillance different?
Ans. Modern surveillance is different because of its scale, speed, precision and interconnectedness.

Q4. Why is private-sector involvement significant?
Ans. Private-sector involvement can make responsibility and accountability for personal data difficult to determine.

Q5. What safeguards does India need?
Ans. India needs clear laws, proportional surveillance, independent oversight and effective remedies against misuse.

Source: The Hindu

‹ ›

CCTV Surveillance in Pharmacies – Balancing Drug Regulation and the Right to Privacy

Context

• The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has initiated a process to mandate CCTV surveillance for the sale of prescription drugs across India by early 2027.
• While the proposal aims to curb the illegal sale and misuse of medicines, it raises concerns regarding the Right to Privacy, proportionality and regulatory accountability.

Potential Benefits of CCTV Surveillance

• CCTV surveillance could strengthen the enforcement of prescription requirements and improve transparency in pharmaceutical sales through –
  • Evidence–basedenforcement: Video footage can establish whether a prescription was presented, which medicine was dispensed and when the transaction occurred.
  • Accountability: It can help drug inspectors investigate complaints against pharmacies repeatedly violating prescription requirements.
  • Prevention of drug diversion: Surveillance could strengthen the monitoring of Schedule H1 and Schedule X medicines, which are subject to stricter regulatory controls due to their potential for misuse.
  • Deterrence: The possibility of being monitored may discourage pharmacies from dispensing prescription medicines without valid prescriptions.
• However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on whether surveillance addresses the actual causes of regulatory violations.

Privacy Concerns and Risks of Mass Surveillance

• Exposure of sensitive health information:
  • Reveal intimate details: A pharmacy is not merely a retail outlet; it is a place where individuals access sensitive healthcare services like purchases of antidepressants, anti-epileptic drugs, HIV medicines, fertility treatments, abortion pills, psychiatric medicines and cancer drugs.
  • Risk of profiling: Combining a person’s identity, pharmacy visits, medicines purchased and transaction timings could create a detailed record of their health-related behaviour.
  • Potential misuse: Unauthorised access, copying, sharing or integration of footage with facial-recognition systems could expose individuals to discrimination, stigma and violations of privacy.
  • Chilling effect: Fear of surveillance may discourage individuals from seeking essential medicines, particularly for sensitive health conditions.
• Questions of data governance:
  • The proposed system raises several concerns –
    • Who will have access to the footage—drug inspectors, police or other government agencies?
    • Can the recordings be used for purposes unrelated to pharmaceutical regulation?
    • How long will the footage be retained, and what safeguards will prevent unauthorised access?
    • Will citizens be informed when their footage is accessed?
  • Without clear safeguards, CCTV surveillance could become a tool for excessive state monitoring.

Limitations of CCTV as a Regulatory Tool

• Checking genuinity: CCTV can document a transaction but cannot independently establish whether a prescription is genuine or medically appropriate.
• Limited verification: A camera can record the presentation of a prescription but cannot verify its authenticity or clinical validity.
• Implementation challenges: Installing and maintaining surveillance systems across pharmacies could impose financial and administrative burdens.
• Regulatory gaps: Greater data collection does not necessarily translate into better enforcement if inspections are inadequate or violations go unpunished.

Constitutional and Legal Dimensions

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Any restriction on privacy must satisfy the principles of –
  • Legality: Surveillance must have a clear legal basis.
  • Necessity: It must serve a legitimate state objective and be necessary to achieve it.
  • Proportionality: The intrusion into individual privacy must be proportionate to the intended objective.
  • Procedural safeguards: Adequate protections must prevent arbitrary surveillance and misuse of personal information.
• The government must demonstrate that blanket CCTV surveillance is necessary and that less intrusive alternatives would not achieve the same regulatory objectives.

Way Forward – A Targeted and Proportionate Approach

• Risk-based surveillance: Prioritise stricter monitoring of high-risk medicines and pharmacies with a history of violations rather than imposing blanket surveillance.
• Strengthen existing enforcement:
  • India already has prescription requirements, pharmacy licensing conditions, inspection mechanisms and specific regulations governing Schedule H, H1 and X medicines.
  • Strengthening their implementation may address illegal sales without subjecting every prescription transaction to surveillance.
  • Improve the capacity of drug inspectors, conduct regular inspections and ensure timely action against violations.
• Data protection safeguards: Establish clear rules on access, retention, deletion and permissible use of CCTV footage.
• Independent oversight: Introduce accountability mechanisms to monitor access to recordings and prevent their misuse.
• Technology with safeguards: Explore digital prescription verification and electronic audit trails as less intrusive alternatives.

Conclusion

• The proposed CCTV mandate highlights the tension between public health regulation and the fundamental right to privacy.
• While technology can improve pharmaceutical oversight, indiscriminate surveillance may create new risks without adequately addressing existing enforcement failures.
• A targeted, transparent and proportionate regulatory framework is essential to ensure that public health objectives are achieved without compromising individual dignity and privacy.

CCTV Surveillance in Pharmacies FAQs

Q1. What are the objectives behind the proposal of CCTV surveillance of pharmacies in India?

Ans. It can enhance transparency, deter illegal sales, strengthen audit trails and facilitate evidence-based action.

Q2. What are the privacy concerns associated with mandatory CCTV surveillance in pharmacies?

Ans. It may expose sensitive health information, enable profiling, risk unauthorised data access, etc.

Q3. How the principles of necessity and proportionality apply to CCTV surveillance in pharmacies?

Ans. Surveillance must serve a legitimate purpose, be necessary to achieve it, and impose no more restrictions on privacy than required.

Q4. Why is CCTV surveillance alone insufficient to address the problem of illegal prescription drug sales in India?

Ans. Because CCTV cannot verify prescription authenticity or medical validity.

Q5. What measures are needed to balance pharmaceutical regulation with the fundamental right to privacy?

Ans. India should adopt risk-based surveillance, strengthen drug inspections, establish strict data protection safeguards, etc.

Source: IE