{"id":52335,"date":"2025-06-28T12:00:05","date_gmt":"2025-06-28T06:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=52335"},"modified":"2025-10-08T12:04:17","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T06:34:17","slug":"daily-editorial-analysis-28-june-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/daily-editorial-analysis-28-june-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Daily Editorial Analysis 28 June 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 class=\"feed_item_title\"><strong>A China-led Trilateral Nexus as India&#8217;s New Challenge<\/strong><\/h2>\n<div class=\"feed_item_content\">\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>China recently held its first trilateral meeting with Pakistan and Bangladesh in Kunming, following a similar May meeting with Pakistan and Afghanistan.<\/li>\n<li>These China-led trilaterals aim to boost regional cooperation and revive Pakistan\u2019s role in regional dynamics.<\/li>\n<li>Strategically, Beijing is leveraging India\u2019s tense relations with Bangladesh and growing footprint in Afghanistan to counter New Delhi\u2019s influence and divert its attention.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>A War That Redefined Regional Alignments<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The 1962 India-China war shaped lasting regional dynamics. Post-war, China found a strategic ally in Pakistan to contain India and safeguard its own geopolitical interests.<\/li>\n<li><strong>China-Pakistan Strategic Bond<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Pakistan views China as a reliable partner for economic and military support.<\/li>\n<li>By the end of 2024, Pakistan owed China over $29 billion, and over 80% of its arms imports were Chinese in origin.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>China&#8217;s Diplomatic Shielding<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>China has repeatedly shielded Pakistan-backed terrorists at the UN and other platforms, solidifying their alliance beyond bilateral trade and defense.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Operation Sindoor and Recent Tensions<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>During India\u2019s Operation Sindoor in May 2025\u2014retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack\u2014China criticized India\u2019s response as \u201cregrettable\u201d and pushed for dialogue.<\/li>\n<li>It endorsed Pakistan\u2019s call for an investigation instead.<\/li>\n<li>The conflict saw Pakistan deploying Chinese-made equipment\u2014from radars, drones, and missiles to fighter jets\u2014underscoring Beijing\u2019s deep military support.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Post-Conflict Diplomacy and Trilateral Outreach<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Soon after the escalation, Pakistan\u2019s Foreign Minister met his Chinese counterpart to reaffirm their \u201ciron-clad friendship.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>The subsequent trilateral meetings with Afghanistan and others are seen as a diplomatic extension of that bond.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Resurfacing an Old Strategy<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The China-Pakistan \u201cplus one\u201d strategy\u2014using third countries to isolate India\u2014is not new.<\/li>\n<li>As early as 1965, Pakistan considered using East Pakistan, China, and Nepal to sever India from its Siliguri Corridor.<\/li>\n<li>The idea appears to be reviving, especially as both Beijing and Rawalpindi confront a confident and assertive India.<\/li>\n<li><strong>India\u2019s Assertive Posture<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>India\u2019s retaliatory strikes post-Uri (2016), Pulwama (2019), and Pahalgam (2025) show a decisive shift from past restraint.\n<ul>\n<li>No tolerance for nuclear blackmail<\/li>\n<li>Indus Waters Treaty suspended, trade halted, port access restricted<\/li>\n<li>Military strikes have weakened Pakistan\u2019s operational confidence<\/li>\n<li>Diplomatically, India has worked to isolate Pakistan globally<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Stiff Pushback Against China<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>India\u2019s response to Chinese aggression in Doklam and Galwan surprised Beijing.<\/li>\n<li>It included:\n<ul>\n<li>Increased cooperation with like-minded democracies<\/li>\n<li>Expanded presence in the Indo-Pacific and South Asia<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Diplomatic outreach by India has slowed China\u2019s regional influence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Shifting Regional Ties<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>India\u2019s pragmatic diplomacy is undermining Chinese momentum in South Asia:\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Maldives:<\/strong>\u00a0President Muizzu, once anti-India, has turned to Delhi to save the economy.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Nepal:<\/strong>\u00a0Despite signing BRI agreements, funding disputes stall progress.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Sri Lanka:<\/strong>\u00a0President Anura Kumara Dissanayake visited India before China.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Bangladesh:<\/strong>\u00a0Despite tensions, India allowed trilateral energy cooperation with Nepal.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>China&#8217;s Strategic Trilateral Push<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>China\u2019s trilateral meetings with Afghanistan and Bangladesh aim to:\n<ul>\n<li>Reclaim influence post-regime changes in 2021 (Afghanistan) and 2024 (Bangladesh)<\/li>\n<li>Offset India\u2019s deepening ties with the Taliban<\/li>\n<li>Reinforce Pakistan\u2019s relevance in the region<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Potential Security Threats<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>China-backed Pakistan is using historic linkages with Bangladesh and Afghanistan to:\n<ul>\n<li>Foster cross-border terrorism.<\/li>\n<li>Distract India with security threats.<\/li>\n<li>Undermine India&#8217;s neighbourhood influence, opening space for Chinese BRI investments and geostrategic dominance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>China \u2013 The Primary Strategic Challenge<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Recent regional shifts reaffirm that China\u2014not Pakistan\u2014is India\u2019s most formidable challenge.<\/li>\n<li>Beijing is leveraging its growing influence and alliance with Pakistan to counter India\u2019s rising confidence and regional outreach.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Trilateral Nexus as a Geopolitical Tool<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>China views the trilateral mechanism as a way to undermine India\u2019s diplomacy and distract it with fresh security and political challenges, especially as India builds regional consensus against terrorism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>South Asian countries now face the difficult task of balancing between India and China, as Beijing uses Islamabad as a proxy to complicate India\u2019s strategic environment and expand its regional footprint.<\/li>\n<li>India must continue to:\n<ul>\n<li>Assert its redlines clearly<\/li>\n<li>Warn neighbours of consequences\u2014economic, military, and political<\/li>\n<li>Deter misadventures through visible and credible retaliatory strategies<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr \/>\n<h2 class=\"feed_item_title\"><strong>Practising Equality in Constitutional Courts<\/strong><\/h2>\n<div class=\"feed_item_content\">\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgment in\u00a0<strong>Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt.) of NCT<\/strong>\u00a0of Delhi,\u00a0<strong>revisiting its earlier decisions in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India<\/strong>\u00a0(2017 and 2023).<\/li>\n<li><strong>The judgment focused on refining the methodology for designating lawyers<\/strong>\u00a0as senior advocates.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Despite its significant implications<\/strong>\u00a0for judicial equity and democratic access to justice,\u00a0<strong>the ruling received little public attention,<\/strong>\u00a0mistakenly perceived as an internal matter of the judiciary.<\/li>\n<li>However,\u00a0<strong>the issue cuts much deeper,<\/strong>\u00a0<strong>revealing the systemic inequality entrenched within the Indian legal profession.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Legal Profession\u2019s Public Character and Systemic Inequality<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The legal profession, unlike many others,\u00a0<strong>bears a distinctly public character.<\/strong>\u00a0It forms a cornerstone of both judicial and political democracies.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Consequently, any stratification within this profession,<\/strong>\u00a0especially one sanctioned by statute and reinforced by judicial endorsement,\u00a0<strong>has profound repercussions on the integrity of the justice delivery system.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>India&#8217;s legal hierarchy,<\/strong>\u00a0particularly the designation of senior advocates under\u00a0<strong>Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961,<\/strong>\u00a0embodies what may be described as a form of\u00a0<strong>legal plutocracy.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>This classification, predicated on ambiguous criteria such as \u2018standing at the Bar\u2019 and \u2018special knowledge or experience in law,<\/strong>\u2019 institutionalises inequality within a profession that should ideally be democratic and egalitarian.<\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>resultant divide undermines the constitutional promise of equality\u00a0<\/strong>before the law and reduces access to justice for marginalized voices.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Comparative Analysis: Lessons from the United States<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>danger of elite capture<\/strong>\u00a0in the legal profession is\u00a0<strong>not unique to India.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>American experience<\/strong>, as\u00a0<strong>detailed in Reuters&#8217; 2014 report \u2018The Echo Chamber, is illustrative.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>study revealed that a mere 66 out of 17,000 lawyers who petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court controlled 43% of the appeals<\/strong>, a clear indication of corporate and elite dominance.<\/li>\n<li>Though\u00a0<strong>India has not replicated this model wholesale<\/strong>, the structural vulnerability is apparent.<\/li>\n<li>With the\u00a0<strong>senior advocate system, Indian courts risk gravitating toward a similarly exclusionary structure\u00a0<\/strong>where a privileged few monopolize legal representation in constitutional and high-stakes matters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Judicial Response and Its Limitations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>Supreme Court&#8217;s attempts to reform this process<\/strong>, notably through the 2017 Indira Jaising judgment, and more recently in Jitender,\u00a0<strong>have focused largely on procedural refinements rather than substantive reform.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>While the\u00a0<strong>Court acknowledged that the point-based system for designation was highly subjective, it chose not to strike down<\/strong>\u00a0the classification altogether.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Instead, it suggested peripheral adjustments,\u00a0<\/strong>such as High Courts framing new rules without addressing the core constitutional challenge: whether this classification passes the test of\u00a0<strong>Article 14\u00a0<\/strong>(equality before law).<\/li>\n<li>In fact,\u00a0<strong>the Jitender judgment paradoxically critiques the very guidelines laid down in Jaising<\/strong>\u00a0as subjective, yet continues to endorse the structure.<\/li>\n<li>This<strong>\u00a0internal inconsistency raises questions about the coherence of the Court\u2019s reasoning.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The deeper issue whether such classification serves any public or constitutional interest, remains ignored.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Core Constitutional Challenge and Consequences<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The Core Constitutional Challenge<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>challenge to Section 16 and related Supreme Court Rules<\/strong>\u00a0was grounded in the argument that\u00a0<strong>the classification is inherently arbitrary and discriminatory.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>designation does not necessarily advance the legal system<\/strong>; rather, it reinforces social stratification.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Many competent lawyers who are not designated continue to contribute significantly<\/strong>\u00a0to the cause of justice.<\/li>\n<li>As such<strong>, the distinction lacks a rational nexus<\/strong>\u00a0with the objectives it purports to serve.<\/li>\n<li>Nevertheless,\u00a0<strong>the Court sidestepped this argument, asserting that as long as procedural safeguards exist<\/strong>, the classification can be maintained. This is problematic.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Consequences: Intellectual Apartheid and Judicial Insularity<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The stratification of the legal profession creates\u00a0<strong>what can only be described as intellectual apartheid.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>A\u00a0<strong>small cadre of star lawyers dominates the judicial discourse,<\/strong>\u00a0marginalising thousands of competent but less visible lawyers.<\/li>\n<li>This\u00a0<strong>insularity narrows the perspectives available to the Court,<\/strong>\u00a0impacting the richness and representativeness of legal arguments, especially on matters of national importance.<\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act serves as a recent example<\/strong>, where only a select few voices were heard.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>A truly democratic legal profession should prioritise competence, commitment to justice<\/strong>, and representation of diverse voices, not social pedigree or courtroom visibility.<\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>time has come for India to evolve a more equitable, transparent, and constitutionally sound system that recognizes\u00a0<\/strong>all advocates as equal participants in the justice system.<\/li>\n<li>Only then\u00a0<strong>can the promise of justice, social, economic, and political, be truly realised.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"feed_item_title\"><strong>Practising Equality in Constitutional Courts FAQs<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><b>Q1.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> What does Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 do?<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><b>Ans.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 classifies advocates into two categories: senior advocates and other advocates, based on criteria such as ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge in law.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Q2. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0Which recent case revisited the designation of senior advocates?<br \/>\n<b>Ans.<\/b> The case of Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi in 2025 revisited the process and criteria for designating senior advocates.<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Q3.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> What is the main criticism of the senior advocate system?<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><b>Ans.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The main criticism is that the senior advocate system institutionalized inequality within the legal profession and promotes elitism.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Q4. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What concept explains judges favoring similar individuals in designations?<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><b>Ans.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The concept of \u2018homo social morphing\u2019 explains how judges tend to favor individuals who resemble themselves, often excluding marginalized groups.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Q5. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0What constitutional principle does the current designation system undermine?<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><b>Ans. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The current designation system undermines the constitutional principle of equality before the law<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/practising-equality-in-constitutional-courts\/article69745749.ece#:~:text=The%20legal%20profession%20has%20a,judicial%20wings%20of%20the%20state.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">The Hindu<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Daily Editorial Analysis 28 June 2025 by Vajiram &#038; Ravi covers key editorials from The Hindu &#038; Indian Express with UPSC-focused insights and relevance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":50653,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[141,882,909],"class_list":{"0":"post-52335","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-daily-editorial-analysis","8":"tag-daily-editorial-analysis","9":"tag-the-hindu-editorial-analysis","10":"tag-the-indian-express-analysis","11":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52335\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/50653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}