Daily Editorial Analysis 12 August 2025

Reviving Civic Engagement in Health Governance

Context

• In recent years, Indian states have experimented with ambitious initiatives aimed at bringing health care directly to people’s doorsteps.
• Tamil Nadu’s Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam scheme, launched in August 2021, and Karnataka’s Gruha Arogya scheme, introduced in October 2024 and expanded statewide in June 2025, are notable examples.
• These programmes focus on delivering services, particularly for non-communicable diseases, directly to citizens’ homes.
• While such measures mark significant progress toward proactive health care delivery, they raise an equally important question: as health systems strive to reach citizens physically, to what extent can citizens themselves reach into, engage with, and influence health governance?

The Imperative of Citizen Engagement and Its Benefits

• The Imperative of Citizen Engagement

  • Health governance in India has evolved from a government-led domain into a more complex ecosystem involving civil society organisations, professional bodies, hospital associations, and trade unions.
  • It functions through both formal and informal processes, where power dynamics influence whose voices are heard.
  • Meaningful public engagement is not just a procedural nicety, it affirms dignity, counters epistemic injustice, and upholds democratic principles by enabling citizens to shape decisions affecting their health.

• Tangible Benefits of Inclusive participation

  • It strengthens accountability and transparency.
  • It challenges elite dominance and reduces the scope for corruption.
  • It develops collaboration with frontline workers, improving service uptake and health outcomes.
  • It builds mutual trust between communities and providers.
  • Without such engagement, health governance risks becoming exclusionary, oppressive, and disconnected from community realities.

Existing Frameworks for Participation and Persistent Challenges

• The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), launched in 2005, institutionalised community participation through platforms like the Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Committees (VHSNCs) and Rogi Kalyan Samitis.
• Designed to be inclusive, especially of women and marginalised groups, these bodies were supported by untied funds for local health initiatives.
• Urban parallels include Mahila Arogya Samitis, Ward Committees, and NGO-led committees.
• However, despite their promise, these platforms face persistent challenges; In some areas, they have never been established.
• Where they do exist, meetings are irregular and roles are poorly defined and funds are underutilised.
• Intersectoral coordination is weak and deep social hierarchies undermine inclusivity.

Structural and Mindset Barriers

• A fundamental obstacle lies in how policymakers, administrators, and providers perceive communities.
• Too often, citizens are viewed as passive beneficiaries rather than active co-creators of health systems.
• This language signals an underlying paternalism: citizens are framed as objects of intervention rather than rights-holders.
• Performance metrics typically prioritise the number of people reached rather than the quality of engagement or the lived experience of service delivery.
• Health governance structures remain dominated by medical professionals, mostly trained in western biomedical models, who often acquire administrative responsibilities without formal public health training.
• Promotions are seniority-based rather than expertise-driven, entrenching a hierarchical and medicalised culture.

The Way Forward

• The Need for a Mindset Shift

  • Addressing these challenges requires a fundamental shift in mindset. Community engagement should not be reduced to an instrumental strategy for achieving programme targets.
  • Treating people merely as a means to better health statistics diminishes their agency and dignity.
  • Participatory processes should be valued in their own right, not only for the outcomes they produce.

• Empowering Communities

  • Disseminate accessible information on health rights and governance structures.
  • Develop civic awareness from an early stage.
  • Intentionally reach marginalised groups.
  • Equip citizens with the tools, skills, and resources to participate meaningfully.

• Sensitising Health System Actors

  • Move beyond the narrative that low health service utilisation is simply due to poor awareness.
  • Avoid individualising blame for systemic issues.
  • Recognise and address structural determinants of health inequities.
  • Develop collaborative relationships where communities are treated as equal partners.

Conclusion

• Doorstep health delivery programmes such as those in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka demonstrate the capacity of the Indian health system to innovate in service provision.
• Yet, without corresponding progress in citizen engagement, such initiatives risk reinforcing a top-down model of care.
• True transformation demands that communities are not only reached by services but are also empowered to shape them.
• By investing in inclusive, functional, and participatory governance platforms, and by shifting the attitudes of health system actors, India can move from a model of medicine at people’s doorsteps to one of democracy in health governance.

Reviving Civic Engagement in Health Governance FAQs

Q1. What is the main goal of schemes like Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam and Gruha Arogya?
Ans. Their main goal is to deliver health care services directly to people’s homes, especially for non-communicable diseases.

Q2. Why is citizen engagement important in health governance?
Ans. Citizen engagement ensures accountability, upholds democratic values, and allows people to shape decisions that affect their health.

Q3. What common problem affects community participation platforms like VHSNCs?
Ans. Many face issues such as irregular meetings, unclear roles, underused funds, and the influence of social hierarchies.

Q4. How are communities often perceived by policymakers and health providers?
Ans. They are often seen as passive beneficiaries rather than active partners in health system decision-making.

Q5. What two-pronged approach is suggested to improve engagement?
Ans. The approach involves empowering communities with knowledge and tools, and sensitising health system actors to treat communities as equal partners.

Source: The Hindu

A Court Ruling With No Room for Gender Justice

Context:

• In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, effectively endorsing the suspension of arrests or coercive action under Section 498-A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Critics argue that this decision rests on false premises and poses a serious risk to both criminal justice and gender equality.
• This article examines the law’s socio-legal context, the Court’s reliance on the “misuse” narrative without empirical backing, and the potential erosion of protections for women facing domestic cruelty.

Section 498-A

• Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) penalises cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives, prescribing imprisonment of up to three years and a fine.
• Cruelty includes dowry harassment, acts driving the woman to suicide, or causing injury to life or health.
• The law was introduced in 1983 to address widespread domestic violence and dowry-related harassment.
• Parliament expanded its scope to cover all forms of cruelty within marriage, following a surge in dowry deaths and recognising that extreme cases like suicides and murders represented only a small fraction of the problem.

Supreme Court Endorses Blanket Protection from Arrest in 498-A Cases

• The Allahabad High Court had earlier directed that in cases under Section 498-A, no arrest or coercive action be taken against accused persons for a two-month “cool-off” period from the filing of the complaint.
• It also directed that such cases be referred to district-level family welfare committees.
• The Supreme Court has now endorsed these directions, effectively granting temporary blanket protection from arrest even when criminal law permits it.
• This decision, made in an individual dispute without detailed examination of its socio-political impact or hearing the State government extensively.
• This means that even with strong evidence of serious crimes, the police cannot make arrests for at least two months.
• Critics argue this risks the safety of complainants, deters victims from lodging complaints, and legitimises police inaction in investigating marital violence.
• While mediation and alternative dispute resolution may be beneficial in sensitive family matters like divorce or child custody, such approaches are unsuitable when serious allegations of violence, falling under penal law, are involved.

The Debate on ‘Misuse’ of the Anti-Cruelty Law

• The perception that Section 498-A is often “misused” has found resonance even in Supreme Court judgments.
• In Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand (2010), the Court noted many non-bona fide cases, while in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India (2005), it warned of “legal terrorism” through misuse.
• In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014), the Court issued strict guidelines against automatic arrests, directing police to assess necessity under Section 41 of the then Criminal Procedure Code.
• These rulings have already made police action in such cases more cautious.

Lack of Empirical Evidence

• Despite frequent references to misuse, courts have not relied on concrete empirical data to substantiate such claims.
• Most cases before the Court involve specific disputes with conflicting narratives, making it difficult to generalise.
• Given the complex social nature of marital cruelty, courts have limited institutional capacity to question the legislative wisdom that enacted such protections.

Conviction Rates and Misinterpretations

• Arguments citing low conviction rates — around 18% as per NCRB 2022 data — are misleading. This rate is still higher than that for many other offences.
• Moreover, low convictions do not inherently prove misuse; they often reflect challenges in investigation, systemic bias, familial pressure on victims to compromise, and the difficulty of proving offences occurring in private spaces.
• High evidentiary standards in criminal law, combined with the reluctance of family members to testify, further explain lower conviction rates without undermining the law’s necessity.

Survey Evidence Counters Misuse Narrative

• NCRB data shows 1,34,506 cases registered under Section 498-A in 2022.
• However, the National Family Health Survey-5 reveals significant under-reporting of violence against women in many states.
• According to the women’s centre Humsafar, the rise in reported cases is likely due to greater legal awareness among women, not necessarily an increase in incidents.
• Even if some false cases exist, the possibility of misuse is inherent in any legislation. The truth of allegations can only be established through proper investigation.
• By suspending the anti-cruelty law’s immediate applicability, the Court has heightened the vulnerability of victims and weakened their access to justice.

Conclusion

• Placing certain criminal provisions under stricter scrutiny than others undermines the uniformity and consistency of the criminal justice system. This selective approach risks creating systemic imbalances.
• In Sushil Kumar Sharma (2005), the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutional validity, emphasising that misuse is no reason to strike down legislation.
• The current stance effectively contradicts that principle, restricting victims’ chances of obtaining meaningful justice.

A Court Ruling With No Room for Gender Justice FAQs

Q1. What was the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal?

Ans. The Court upheld a two-month “cool-off” period in Section 498-A cases, barring arrests and referring matters to family welfare committees.

Q2. Why was Section 498-A enacted in 1983?

Ans. To address rising dowry deaths and domestic violence, offering women legal recourse against cruelty by husbands or their relatives.

Q3. What concerns arise from the Court’s suspension of arrests?

Ans. It risks victim safety, deters complaints, legitimises police inaction, and undermines the urgency needed in serious violence cases.

Q4. Is there empirical evidence supporting the ‘misuse’ narrative of Section 498-A?

Ans. No substantial empirical data exists; most cases involve specific disputes, making generalised conclusions unreliable.

Q5. How does the ruling affect the consistency of criminal law?

Ans. It subjects Section 498-A to stricter scrutiny than other criminal provisions, creating systemic imbalance and weakening uniform justice standards.

Source: TH

‹ ›

Recurring Monsoon Disasters in the Himalaya – Beyond Climate Change Narratives

Context:

• The lower Himalayan states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have witnessed severe erosion and flash floods during the current monsoon season.
• Public perception often attributes such events directly to climate change, overlooking historical recurrence and local anthropogenic triggers—especially unplanned construction and poor land use, which are key drivers of disaster vulnerability.

Historical Precedence of Himalayan Disasters:

• 2013 Kedarnath floods: When Kedarnath and the Mandakini Valley were inundated by an unstoppable surge of water and debris caused by a glacial outburst that was triggered by excessive rain.
• 2011 Assi Ganga floods near Uttarkashi: Washed away a hydropower project and labour camps.
• 1970 and 1978 floods: When minor tributaries of the Alakananda and Bhagirathi were blocked by landslides, forming temporary dams that finally burst and carried a huge volume of water and rubble downstream.
• 1880 Harsil flood: A major flash flood occurred near the site of this week’s disaster.

Structural and Environmental Vulnerabilities:

• Natural vulnerability of the Himalaya:

  • Geologically young and unstable mountains.
  • Susceptibility to hydrological extremes, erosion, and seismic activity.

• Human-induced risks:

  • Unplanned and illegal construction: Homes, hotels, ashrams, eateries built on riverbanks and flood-prone zones.

• Tourism pressure:

  • Char Dham Yatra expansion via widened roads and helicopter services.
  • Rising pilgrim influx leading to mushrooming of hotels and dhabas in hazard zones.

• Urban encroachment:

  • Dehradun and Mussoorie seeing construction in streambeds and landslide-prone areas despite earlier restrictions.

Political and Administrative Factors:

• Bureaucratic complacency and political opportunism enabling unsafe development.
• Ineffective enforcement of land use and building norms in ecologically sensitive zones.

Misplaced Attribution to Climate Change:

• While climate change impacts (melting glaciers, altered precipitation) are real, attributing every disaster to it oversimplifies causation.
• Avoidable, immediate triggers such as poor planning, deforestation, and encroachment play a more decisive role in disaster severity.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen land-use planning: Enforce zoning laws and hazard mapping.
• Regulate religious and adventure tourism: Introduce visitor caps in ecologically sensitive areas.
• Eco-sensitive infrastructure: Prioritise resilient construction, away from flood plains.
• Public awareness: Shift discourse from fatalism to accountability for unsafe practices.

Conclusion:

• In the coming decades, safeguarding the fragile Himalayan ecosystem will require shifting from reactive disaster relief to proactive, science-based land-use planning that prioritises ecological security over unchecked development.
• By integrating resilient infrastructure, regulated tourism, and community participation, the region can transform from a disaster-prone zone into a model for sustainable mountain governance.

Recurring Monsoon Disasters in the Himalaya FAQs

Q1. How have monsoon disasters historically recurred in the Himalaya?

Ans: Flash floods and landslides from 1880 to 2013 show a recurring hazard pattern requiring long-term resilience planning.

Q2. How does unplanned construction raise flood risks in Himalayan towns?

Ans: Riverbank encroachment and weak zoning enforcement increase vulnerability to floods.

Q3. How does religious tourism add to disaster risk in Uttarakhand?

Ans: Unregulated pilgrim influx drives unsafe construction in hazard-prone valleys.

Q4. Why is attributing all extreme events to climate change problematic?

Ans: It diverts focus from avoidable human-induced causes like deforestation and poor land use.

Q5. What steps can balance development and ecology in Himalayan states?

Ans: Eco-zoning, tourist caps, resilient infrastructure, and strict land-use laws.

Source: IE