Daily Editorial Analysis 26 October 2026

Lessons on the Right to Assembly

Context

• Recent protests in Delhi against the exclusion of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have raised concerns about constitutional freedoms.
• Protesters have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while the government’s response has intensified debates over the suppression of peaceful demonstrations.
• India has a rich tradition of protests, from the freedom struggle to movements led by farmers, students, trade unions and civil society.
• The right to protest is a constitutional freedom, not a government privilege.

The Democratic Significance of Dissent

• Dissent enables citizens to question government policies, demand accountability and express grievances.
• However, a growing culture of suspicion towards dissent threatens democratic participation.
• Questioning protesters about permissions or funding can undermine their autonomy and portray disagreement as hostility towards the government.
• A mature democracy must recognise that peaceful criticism strengthens democratic institutions.
• Governments should address public grievances through dialogue and accountability rather than coercion.

Constitutional Protection of the Right to Protest

• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
• These provisions enable citizens to organise demonstrations and collectively demand policy changes.
• However, Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions on peaceful assembly in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.
• The challenge lies in distinguishing reasonable regulation from arbitrary restriction.
• Authorities may regulate the timing, location and manner of demonstrations, but such measures must not eliminate the practical exercise of fundamental rights.

Misuse of Preventive Laws and Police Powers

• Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, empowers authorities to issue preventive orders in urgent cases involving potential danger or public disturbance.
• Although necessary during genuine emergencies, its excessive application can restrict peaceful demonstrations.
• Reported practices, including disproportionate force, prolonged detention, restrictions on access to lawyers and essential necessities, and deportation notices to participating Overseas Citizens of India, raise concerns about civil liberties.
• Such measures create a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly, discouraging citizens from expressing legitimate grievances.
• Preventive powers must be exercised with restraint and remain subject to legal scrutiny. Public order cannot justify blanket suppression of dissent.

Judicial Precedents and the Limits of State Authority

• In Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1972), the Supreme Court distinguished reasonable regulation of public meetings from arbitrary exclusion.
• It warned against restrictions that effectively eliminate opportunities for public gatherings in streets and parks.
• The judgment establishes that accessible public spaces are essential for democratic participation. Without them, the right to assemble risks becoming merely theoretical.
• In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the predecessor provision to Section 163 but observed that it was intended for emergencies.
• These judgments underline the importance of proportionate restrictions and judicial oversight.
• Preventive powers must not become routine instruments for suppressing political expression.

Designating protest sites

• The denotification of Jantar Mantar, a prominent protest site in Delhi, raises concerns about access to public spaces.
• Relocating demonstrations to distant or inaccessible locations can weaken their effectiveness by separating protesters from the public, media and policymakers.
• On October 9, the Supreme Court directed authorities to designate suitable alternative protest sites while hearing petitions concerning a blanket transport ban affecting access to Delhi.
• However, no interim relief was granted in the cases challenging Jantar Mantar’s denotification, leaving the site inaccessible at the time described.
• Alternative locations must be genuinely accessible, well-connected and sufficiently visible to facilitate democratic participation.
• Merely designating distant sites cannot adequately protect the right to assembly.
• The judiciary must scrutinise restrictions that weaken constitutional freedoms while recognising the state’s responsibility to maintain public order.

Conclusion

• Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect expression and peaceful assembly, while Article 19(3) permits only reasonable restrictions.
• Excessive preventive measures, disproportionate police action and inaccessible protest sites threaten civil liberties and democratic participation.
• The government must distinguish peaceful criticism from genuine threats to public order, while courts must prevent arbitrary executive action.
• Ultimately, a strong democracy does not fear dissent; it protects the freedom to disagree. Safeguarding peaceful protests and accessible public spaces is essential to public trust, accountability and constitutional governance.

Lessons on the Right to Assembly FAQs

Q1. What is the constitutional basis of the right to protest in India?
Ans. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Q2. What restrictions can the government impose on protests?
Ans. The government can impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.

Q3. What is the purpose of Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023?
Ans. Section 163 empowers authorities to issue preventive orders in urgent cases involving potential danger or public disturbance.

Q4. What did the Supreme Court establish in Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1972)?
Ans. The Court held that reasonable regulation of public meetings must not become arbitrary exclusion.

Q5. Why are designated protest sites important?
Ans. Accessible protest sites enable citizens to express grievances and hold the government accountable.

Source: The Hindu

The Need for a National Media Council

Context

• The crackdown on journalists during protests organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), has reignited the debate over press freedom, journalistic identity and government accreditation.
• Freelance and independent journalists were removed and detained, while only those accredited by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) or Directorate of Information and Publicity (DIP) were allowed to cover the protests.
• The incident raises two fundamental questions: Who qualifies as a journalist, and who has the authority to recognise one?
• Resolving these questions is crucial to protecting freedom of expression while ensuring professional accountability.

The Crackdown on Journalists and Freedom of Expression

• Police Action During the Protests

  • The CJP protests in July over the NEET paper leak and in October over the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation attracted journalists from established media organisations, freelancers and digital content creators.
  • During the protests, police removed several independent journalists and detained them.
  • This action raises concerns about equal access to public events and freedom of the press.
  • Independent journalists frequently document demonstrations, report police actions and present perspectives overlooked by mainstream media.

• Judicial Debate and Competing Concerns

  • During a Public Interest Litigation seeking protection for freelance journalists and content creators, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether freedom of expression entitled every citizen to become a journalist.
  • Senior advocate Indira Jaisingh advocated a national protocol preventing police from obstructing journalists carrying valid employer-issued identification.
  • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, warned that individuals could misuse journalistic claims to create sensationalised or one-sided social media content for popularity and financial gain.

Recognising Journalists

• The Legal Definition of a Working Journalist

  • The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, defines a working journalist as someone whose principal occupation is journalism and who is employed in newspaper, electronic or digital media.
  • Those working in managerial or administrative capacities are excluded.
  • The Central and State governments provide accreditation to eligible journalists, freelancers, camerapersons and technicians.

• Government Accreditation and Its Limitations

  • In Delhi-NCR, the PIB facilitates coverage of the Central government, while the DIP provides accreditation for covering the Delhi government.
  • However, accreditation depends on eligibility criteria and quotas linked to newspaper circulation, news agency subscriptions, television licences and digital platforms’ unique visitors.
  • Consequently, not every journalist receives official accreditation, including some working in recognised media organisations. Freelancers and journalists associated with smaller digital platforms face additional difficulties.
  • This creates a distinction between professional journalistic work and official recognition.
  • Making accreditation the sole criterion for covering public events risks excluding legitimate journalists and restricting access to information.

The Way Forward

• The Need for a National Media Council

  • A proposed solution is establishing an independent national media council or commission to recognise journalists across different platforms.
  • Institutions such as the Bar Council of India and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India regulate their respective professions.
  • A similar media council could establish transparent recognition procedures for working journalists, freelancers, camerapersons and technicians.
  • It could maintain a national register, issue professional identification, establish ethical guidelines and provide mechanisms for addressing complaints against journalists and authorities.
  • The Press Club of India previously drafted a Media Transparency (and Accountability) Bill, proposing a national media council. Other journalists’ organisations have also demanded similar reforms.

• Balancing Professional Accountability and Press Freedom

  • Social media has blurred the boundaries between journalists, influencers and content creators.
  • Although digital platforms have democratised information, they have also facilitated misinformation, sensationalism and unverified reporting.
  • A national media council could promote transparent accreditation, ethical standards and accountability.
  • Nevertheless, it must safeguard editorial independence and remain free from political interference.
  • Government accreditation should not become the sole criterion for practising journalism or reporting public events.
  • Restrictions should be based on legitimate security requirements, objective rules and applicable law, rather than arbitrary distinctions between accredited and non-accredited journalists.
  • Any framework must protect journalists against intimidation, unlawful detention and obstruction while ensuring that restrictions are necessary, proportionate and legally justified.

Conclusion

• The detention of independent journalists during the CJP protests demonstrates the need to reconsider how journalists are recognised and protected in India.
• Existing legal definitions and accreditation systems do not adequately address the challenges of freelance journalism and digital media.
• An independent, transparent and inclusive national media council could bridge this gap, provided it promotes professional standards without monopolising the right to report.
• Ultimately, democracy requires both responsible journalism and an independent press.

The Need for a National Media Council FAQs

Q1. What triggered the debate over journalistic recognition?
Ans. The detention of freelance journalists during the October 10 CJP protests triggered the debate.

Q2. What is the role of PIB and DIP?
Ans. The PIB and DIP provide accreditation for covering the Central and Delhi governments, respectively.

Q3. What is the main limitation of government accreditation?
Ans. Government accreditation excludes some legitimate journalists because of eligibility criteria and quotas.

Q4. Why is a national media council proposed?
Ans. A national media council could establish transparent recognition procedures and promote professional accountability.

Q5. How can press freedom be protected?
Ans. Press freedom can be protected through independent regulation, fair accreditation and safeguards against arbitrary restrictions.

Source: The Hindu

‹ ›

India’s Fertiliser Imbalance – Correcting the Economics of Nutrient Use

Context

• Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan launched the ‘Khet Bachao Abhiyan’ (Save the Farm Campaign) in Karnal, Haryana, urging farmers to adopt balanced use of chemical fertilisers.
• Excessive and imbalanced application is degrading soil health, contaminating groundwater and increasing air pollution.
• However, farmer behaviour is strongly influenced by fertiliser prices. Despite the Nutrient-Based Subsidy (NBS) introduced in 2010 to correct nutrient imbalance, India’s fertiliser use has become more skewed towards nitrogen (N).

Worsening N:P Imbalance

• An ICRIER policy brief (Repurposing India’s Fertiliser Policy towards Nutrient Optimisation) compares actual nutrient use with crop- and irrigation-specific recommended doses across 20 major States between 2009-10 and 2024-25.
• Nitrogen (N) use has shifted from 7% below the recommended level to 6% above it. The phosphorus (P) deficit has narrowed only from 29% to 22%.
• Potassium (K) deficit has widened sharply from 48% to 72%. Farmers apply only 9 kg of potash/ha against a requirement of 32 kg.
• As a result, India’s N:P ratio is 10.5:4.1:1, against the normative 2.8:1.5:1. 11 of 20 States overuse nitrogen, while every State underuses potassium.
• Punjab and Jharkhand are among the largest nitrogen overusers, while Haryana and Jharkhand use only around one-tenth of their required potassium.

Perverse Price Signals

• The principal problem is the unequal subsidy structure. NBS allowed prices of phosphatic and potassic fertilisers to respond to global markets, while urea remained under a heavily controlled price regime.
• For example, between 2010-11 and 2024-25, Diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices nearly tripled to ₹54/kg, muriate of potash (MOP) prices increased six-fold to ₹52/kg, while the price of nitrogen contained in urea rose by only 1%.
• Consequently, farmers have a strong economic incentive to use urea. Nitrogen also produces visible short-term greening, whereas potassium deficiency often manifests gradually through lower resilience and productivity.
• Nitrogen’s share in total NPK use has consequently returned to around 67%, comparable to the level in 1970-71.

Environmental and Nutritional Costs

• The imbalance is damaging both soil health and human health. For example, under the Soil Health Card (SHC) programme, among 96 lakh samples tested in 2025-26 –
  • 72% were low in nitrogen;
  • 52% in organic carbon;
  • 42% in boron; and
  • 37% in zinc.
• Excess nitrogen application is inefficient because crops absorb only 30-40% of applied nitrogen. The remainder can enter the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, or leach into groundwater as nitrate.
• Nitrate contamination above safe limits has been reported in parts of 502 districts, posing risks including infant methemoglobinemia (“blue baby syndrome”) and chronic health problems.
• Potassium deficiency reduces crop resistance to drought and disease, while phosphorus deficiency can delay flowering.
• Micronutrient deficiencies also reduce nutritional quality of food, contributing to hidden hunger.

Fiscal and Regional Costs

• The fertiliser subsidy allocation for 2026-27 is ₹1.71 lakh crore. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could raise this to ₹2.5-3 lakh crore, with urea accounting for about two-thirds.
• The subsidy structure is also regionally unequal. Punjab receives around ₹25,700 of nitrogen subsidy per hectare, nearly ten times Kerala’s level.
• Combined with MSP-based procurement and subsidised electricity, cheap fertilisers reinforce the rice-wheat cropping pattern, intensifying groundwater depletion in north-western India.

Way Forward

• Shift from input subsidy to nutrient-neutral support:

  • Move towards per-hectare Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) that is neutral across nutrients and crops.
  • This would expose farmers to market prices and remove urea’s artificial price advantage.
  • AgriStack’s farmer IDs and land-linked digital infrastructure could facilitate targeted transfers, although identifying tenant farmers remains a challenge.
  • Alternatively, urea could gradually be brought under NBS while reducing DAP and MOP prices.
• Incentivise States: PM-PRANAM should be strengthened and implemented effectively to reward States that reduce excessive fertiliser use and promote nutrient balance.
• Redirect subsidy savings: Savings should support drip irrigation, fertigation and fertiliser innovation, including customised/coated fertilisers, triple super phosphate (TSP), biofertilisers, nano-fertilisers and nitrogen-efficient seeds.
• Promote the 4Rs:
  • Right Source, Right Rate, Right Time and Right Place — using plot-level soil-test-based recommendations.
  • Crop diversification and cereal-pulse rotations can further reduce nitrogen requirements.
  • However, meaningful change in Punjab and Haryana also requires reform of electricity pricing and procurement incentives.

Conclusion

• India must shift the policy yardstick from the quantity of fertiliser consumed to the balanced supply of nutrients.
• Fertiliser policy must simultaneously address soil health, groundwater depletion, fiscal sustainability, climate change and nutritional security.
• Without correcting the underlying price and procurement incentives, awareness campaigns alone are unlikely to reverse the nutrient imbalance.

India’s Fertiliser Imbalance FAQs

Q1. Why has India’s fertiliser use become increasingly nitrogen-centric despite the NBS?

Ans. Urea’s artificially low price compared with DAP and MOP creates a strong incentive to overuse nitrogen.

Q2. What are the major environmental consequences of India’s imbalanced fertiliser use?

Ans. Soil degradation, nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate contamination of groundwater.

Q3. How does India’s fertiliser subsidy regime create fiscal and ecological distortions?

Ans. Cheap urea raises subsidy expenditure while reinforcing water-intensive rice-wheat cultivation.

Q4. What reforms can promote balanced fertiliser use in India?

Ans. Nutrient-neutral DBT, effective PM-PRANAM incentives, subsidy savings for sustainable technologies, etc.

Q5. Why must fertiliser policy be integrated with broader agricultural reforms?

Ans. Fertiliser balance cannot be achieved without simultaneously reforming MSP procurement, crop diversification, etc.

Source: IE