UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 15 July 2026

Trial in Absentia: Understanding India’s New Legal Mechanism for Absconding Offenders

July 15, 2026

Trial in Absentia Latest News

A Special NIA Court in Jammu has issued a non-bailable warrant against Hafiz Saeed, the Pakistan-based chief of the proscribed terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), in connection with the investigation into the Pahalgam terror attack.
The warrant was issued at the request of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), two days after it filed a supplementary chargesheet against Saeed.
Since Saeed is unlikely to appear before an Indian court, the NIA is expected to seek a trial in absentia under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Background of the Case

The NIA's supplementary chargesheet has charged Hafiz Saeed both in his individual capacity and as chief of LeT and its proxy outfit, The Resistance Front (TRF).
He has been charged under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, including provisions relating to waging war against India and conspiracy hatched from across the border.

What is Trial in Absentia?

A trial in absentia refers to a criminal trial conducted in the absence of the accused.
Under Section 356 of the BNSS, if a person declared a proclaimed offender has absconded to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of arrest, the court may treat the accused's absence as a waiver of their right to be present.
After recording reasons in writing, the court can proceed with the inquiry, trial, and pronouncement of judgment as though the accused were present.

Comparison with the Earlier CrPC Framework

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which BNSS has replaced:
- Section 82(4) CrPC allowed proclamation and attachment of property of an absconding accused.
- Section 317 CrPC allowed trial in the accused's absence only in specific cases.
- Section 299 CrPC allowed recording of evidence in the accused's absence if there was no prospect of arrest.
These provisions gave presiding officers discretion to proceed in-absentia only if the accused's personal attendance was not necessary for justice, or if the accused persistently disrupted proceedings.
Crucially, none of these provisions allowed a full-fledged trial in absentia, causing many trials to remain pending for years until the accused was apprehended.
BNSS's Section 356 addresses this gap by enabling complete trials, not just partial proceedings, in the accused's absence

Who Does This Apply To?

Trial in absentia does not apply to every accused person; it is available only for a "proclaimed offender," as defined under Section 84 of the BNSS.
Under Section 84(4), if a proclamation has been issued against a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more, life imprisonment, or death, and the person fails to appear before the court, the court may declare them a proclaimed offender after due inquiry.
Thus, trial in absentia is restricted to serious offences carrying at least 10 years' imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death, where the accused has already been declared a proclaimed offender.

Procedural Safeguards Under Section 356

To protect the accused's right to a fair trial, several safeguards must be met before proceedings can begin:
- Two consecutive arrest warrants must be issued at an interval of at least 30 days.
- A public notice must be published in a local or national newspaper, giving the accused 30 days to appear.
- The notice must be displayed at the accused's last known residence, and a relative or friend must be informed.
- The trial cannot commence until 90 days have elapsed from the framing of charges, ensuring adequate opportunity for the accused to appear.
- If the accused has no legal representation, the court must appoint a defence lawyer at State expense.
- Statements of prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial may be used as evidence; however, if the accused is later apprehended, the court may permit cross-examination of witnesses in the interest of justice.
- Depositions and witness examinations may be recorded through audiovisual electronic means, preserved to ensure transparency, accuracy, and integrity, and to enable review if the accused is later apprehended.

Conclusion

Trial in absentia under BNSS marks a significant shift from the CrPC's fragmented approach, enabling complete trials of proclaimed offenders in serious cases while embedding robust safeguards.
It balances the need for timely justice against absconding offenders like Hafiz Saeed with the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

Source: TH | OHRH

Trial in Absentia FAQs

Q1: What is Trial in Absentia under the BNSS?

Ans: Trial in Absentia allows courts to conduct criminal proceedings against proclaimed offenders who deliberately evade arrest, subject to strict procedural safeguards and judicial oversight.

Q2: Who can be subjected to Trial in Absentia?

Ans: Trial in Absentia applies only to proclaimed offenders accused of serious offences punishable with at least ten years' imprisonment, life imprisonment or death.

Q3: What safeguards are provided before commencing a Trial in Absentia?

Ans: Trial in Absentia requires arrest warrants, public notice, adequate opportunity to appear, legal representation and judicial satisfaction before proceedings can begin.

Q4: How does Trial in Absentia differ from the earlier CrPC framework?

Ans: Unlike the CrPC, Trial in Absentia under the BNSS permits a complete criminal trial against absconding proclaimed offenders instead of only limited proceedings.

Q5: Why is Trial in Absentia significant for India's criminal justice system?

Ans: Trial in Absentia balances speedy justice with fair trial guarantees, preventing proclaimed offenders from indefinitely delaying criminal proceedings through deliberate absconding.

Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee: Why Trump’s 20% Proposal Was Never Workable

July 15, 2026

Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee Latest News

US President Donald Trump has reversed his plan to charge a 20% fee on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, just a day after announcing it.
He announced to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals. The abrupt reversal came amid widespread scepticism from experts over the plan's legality and feasibility.

The Original Proposal and Its Flaws

Trump had announced that the US would become "THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT" and, as a matter of fairness, be reimbursed at 20% on all cargo shipped to cover the costs of providing security in the region.
However, the proposal left several critical questions unanswered:
- Calculation ambiguity: It was unclear whether the fee would apply to the total value of cargo, the cost incurred by American forces, or some other formula.
- Cost impact: If based on total cargo value, shipping costs through the strait would have risen sharply, significantly increasing the landed price of commodities.
- Implementation and legality: Questions arose over how the fee would be enforced and its legality under international law.
- Security guarantee: The US's ability to guarantee safety of commercial vessels was doubtful, given its response to Iranian strikes had so far been only retaliatory, without pre-emptive protective measures.

International Opposition

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) firmly opposed the plan, stating there is no legal basis to impose mandatory tolls for transiting straits used for international navigation.
Notably, the US has traditionally championed freedom of navigation and had strongly opposed Iran's attempts to charge tolls for the same strait, making Trump's proposal a reversal of Washington's own long-held position.
Also, this could have inadvertently strengthened Iran's case for imposing its own tolls.

The Underlying Battle for Control of Hormuz

The fee flip-flop reflects a deeper contest between the US and Iran over control of the strategically vital waterway:
- An interim US-Iran pact signed on June 17, 2026 had promised to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and vessel transits rose meaningfully thereafter, though still below pre-war levels of up to 140 daily transits.
- Renewed tensions caused vessel transits to crash to their lowest levels in nearly a month.
- Iran's Foreign Minister asserted that Iran, not the US, has "always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait," while also calling Trump's 20% figure excessive.
Since the war began in February 2026, Iran has claimed sovereignty over parts of the strait and targeted vessels sailing outside its authorised shipping lanes, while the US has struck Iranian military targets in response.
Iran closed the strait to commercial vessels over the preceding weekend, prompting the US to reinstate a naval blockade in the region.
Under UNCLOS, straits are natural waterways with no general transit charge, though neither the US nor Iran has ratified this convention; it is nonetheless widely accepted as customary international law.

Why This Mattered for India

Had the fee been implemented, it would have significantly impacted India as a major energy importer:
- India sources around 40% of its crude oil, 60% of its LNG, and 90% of its LPG imports from West Asia via the Strait of Hormuz.
  - India's import dependence stands at over 88% for oil, 60% for LPG, and about 50% for natural gas.
- A 20% fee on a $75/barrel crude oil price would have pushed the landed cost to over $90/barrel.
- Assuming 30% of India's oil imports continued via Hormuz, the fee alone could have added $9 billion annually to India's oil import bill, excluding additional costs for LNG, LPG, fertilisers, and industrial inputs.
- Every $1/barrel rise in oil prices increases India's annual oil import bill by up to $2 billion, given India imports 1.8-2 billion barrels of crude annually.

India's Broader Response to the Crisis

India has consistently advocated that navigation through international waterways like the Strait of Hormuz should remain free and accessible to all.
Diversified crude sourcing helped maintain adequate oil supplies, but the government had to ration gas supplies to certain industries and take emergency measures to prevent panic fuel buying; some of these were rolled back after the June MoU improved the situation.
India's oil imports surged 47% year-on-year to $48.88 billion in March-May 2026, as the country prioritised supply security over cost, as per Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas data.
Elevated energy import costs have wider ramifications for India's trade balance, current account, inflation, and the rupee's exchange rate.

Conclusion

Trump's rapid U-turn exposed the impracticality of unilaterally taxing a strategic international waterway, legally, diplomatically, and economically.
For India, it underscores continued vulnerability to West Asian energy disruptions, reinforcing the need for diversified sourcing and sustained advocacy for free global navigation.

Source: IE

Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee FAQs

Q1: Why was the proposed Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee considered unworkable?

Ans: The Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee lacked legal backing, faced implementation challenges and contradicted internationally accepted principles governing navigation through strategic international waterways.

Q2: How would the Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee have affected India?

Ans: The Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee would have increased India's energy import costs, fuel inflation and trade deficit due to the country's heavy dependence on West Asian energy supplies.

Q3: Why did the International Maritime Organization oppose the Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee?

Ans: The International Maritime Organization argued that the Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee had no legal basis because international straits generally cannot be subjected to mandatory transit charges.

Q4: What broader geopolitical issue does the Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee debate reflect?

Ans: The Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee controversy reflects the strategic rivalry between the United States and Iran over security, navigation and influence in a critical global energy chokepoint.

Q5: What lessons does the Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee episode offer for India?

Ans: The Strait of Hormuz Transit Fee episode underscores the need for diversified energy imports, strategic reserves, resilient supply chains and continued support for freedom of navigation.

Draft National Health Research Policy 2026 – Explained

July 15, 2026

Health Research Policy Latest News

The Centre has released the Draft National Health Research Policy 2026, proposing a comprehensive overhaul of India's health research ecosystem to align research more closely with the country's disease burden and public health priorities.

About Health Research in India

Health research in India is a broad field encompassing biomedical science, clinical medicine, public health, epidemiology, digital health, health systems, behavioural sciences, and emerging technologies. It plays a critical role in:
- Understanding disease patterns and burden
- Developing vaccines, diagnostics, and medicines
- Informing evidence-based policymaking
- Improving healthcare delivery
- Preparing for public health emergencies

Key Institutions

India has built considerable scientific capability through institutions such as:
- Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
- Department of Health Research (DHR)
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and other premier institutions
- National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad

Existing Framework

The current National Health Research Policy was introduced in 2011. The new draft policy aims to update this framework to address emerging challenges and align with India's growing ambitions in health research.
Low Public Investment
- India currently spends only 0.024% of GDP on health research.
- This is significantly below the weighted average of 0.27% of GDP invested by high-income countries (as reported by WHO).
Uneven Research Capacity
- Research capacity is concentrated in a handful of institutions and states.
- Wide regional disparities exist in research infrastructure and capabilities.
- Many medical colleges have limited research output.
Fragmented Research Efforts
- Duplication of research by different agencies.
- Lack of coordination between academia, hospitals, industry, and government.
- Absence of a unified national framework.
Priorities Not Aligned with Disease Burden
- Research priorities do not always match India's real disease burden.
- Insufficient focus on equity concerns and health system gaps.
- Inadequate preparation for future public health emergencies.
Slow Translation of Research
- Scientific findings often do not translate into healthcare delivery.
- Administrative and regulatory delays slow down research.
- Weak links between research outcomes and policy implementation.
Limited Cross-Sector Collaboration
- Weak collaboration between academia, hospitals, industry, and government.
- Limited participation of the private sector in health research.
- Insufficient community engagement in research priorities.

News Summary: Draft National Health Research Policy 2026

The Department of Health Research has released the Draft National Health Research Policy 2026, which represents the first attempt at a unified national framework spanning all areas of health research.
The policy has been opened for public comments until 27 July, after which it will be finalised.
The draft policy aims to:
- Align scientific research more closely with disease burden and public health priorities
- Promote indigenous innovation
- Enable evidence-based policymaking
- Ensure measurable outcomes
- Address fragmentation and regional disparities
- Speed up translation of research into healthcare and policy

Key Proposals of the Draft Policy

Massive Increase in Research Funding
- The draft proposes a six-fold increase in government spending on health research:
- Current: 0.024% of GDP
- By 2037: 0.072% of GDP
- By 2047: 0.15% of GDP
- While this would bring India closer to high-income countries' investment levels, it would still remain below their current weighted average of 0.27%.
National Health Research Agenda
- A National Health Research Agenda will be created to identify priority research areas based on:
  - Disease burden in India
  - Emerging health threats
  - Health system needs
  - National priorities
  - Equity and pandemic preparedness
  - Strategic national interest
Priority Research Areas
- The draft identifies key priority areas including: Tuberculosis, Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), Vector-borne diseases, Cancer, Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), Mental health, Anaemia, Child malnutrition, Women's health, Maternal and neonatal mortality, Primary healthcare and Emergency care
Three-Tier Governance Structure
- The draft proposes a comprehensive three-tier governance structure:
- National Health Research Stewardship Committee - for overall strategic coordination.
- Department of Health Research - as the nodal implementing agency.
- Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) - as the scientific and technical lead.
- States will be expected to weave research more tightly into local health programmes and service delivery.
New Evaluation Framework for Scientists
- A significant shift is proposed in how researchers are evaluated:
- Moving from counting research papers and grants to assessing real-world impact.
- Expanded use of the ICMR Impact of Research and Innovation Scale (ICMR-IRIS) introduced in 2025.
- As the draft states: "It is not enough to count studies completed, papers published, grants awarded, or technologies developed. The deeper test is whether research strengthens scientific capability, informs policy and practice, builds institutions and people, reaches underserved populations, improves health systems, and contributes to better health for India and the world."
Simplified Ethics and Regulatory Framework
- Simplified ethics approvals for multicentre studies.
- Establishment of a National Research Integrity Office (NRIO).
- Responsible use of artificial intelligence in health research.
- Expanded shared access to laboratories, biobanks, and other publicly funded research facilities.
Bigger Role for States and Private Sector
- The policy seeks to expand health research beyond a few leading institutions by:
- Strengthening research capacity in medical colleges.
- Encouraging greater participation from private hospitals, startups, and industry.
- Improving collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and healthcare providers.
- Requiring states to prepare their own health research agendas based on local disease patterns.
- Calling for greater investment from industry, philanthropic organisations, and CSR initiatives.

Expert Views

According to experts in global health and bioethics, the draft is a step towards making health research more responsive to the country's needs:
The draft covers the entire research pathway from identifying priorities to generating evidence, innovation, implementation, and measuring real-world impact.
It places ethical and scientific integrity, community participation, and accountability at the centre.
The proposal to expand research beyond a few institutions and involve states in setting priorities is welcome.
However, the policy's goals will require sustained investment and effective implementation.
It should help address challenges such as inadequate research infrastructure, research misconduct, delays in fellowship payments to research scholars, and timely implementation.

Source: TH | Print

Health Research Policy FAQs

Q1: Which department released the Draft National Health Research Policy 2026?

Ans: The Department of Health Research under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released the draft policy.

Q2: What is India's current spending on health research as a percentage of GDP?

Ans: India currently spends 0.024% of its GDP on health research, well below the average of 0.27% in high-income countries.

Q3: What are the target spending levels proposed by the draft policy?

Ans: The draft proposes increasing health research spending to 0.072% of GDP by 2037 and 0.15% of GDP by 2047.

Q4: What is the three-tier governance structure proposed in the policy?

Ans: It comprises the National Health Research Stewardship Committee for strategic coordination, the Department of Health Research as nodal implementing agency, and ICMR as the scientific and technical lead.

Q5: What is the ICMR Impact of Research and Innovation Scale (ICMR-IRIS)?

Ans: ICMR-IRIS is a framework introduced by ICMR in 2025 to assess research impact beyond publications, including contributions to clinical guidelines, public health programmes, and health outcomes.