{"id":66975,"date":"2025-10-07T11:09:50","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T05:39:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=66975"},"modified":"2025-10-10T11:05:16","modified_gmt":"2025-10-10T05:35:16","slug":"daily-editorial-analysis-7-october-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/daily-editorial-analysis-7-october-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Daily Editorial Analysis 7 October 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><strong>Calling Out the Criticism of the Indian Judiciary\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>In societies seeking swift progress, <strong>the temptation to find a scapegoat for structural failures<\/strong> is strong and <strong>in contemporary India, this tendency has found its latest target in the judiciary. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>For many within the ruling establishment, <strong>the courts have become convenient symbols of inefficiency and obstruction<\/strong>, institutions that supposedly stand in the way of India\u2019s ambitions to become a Viksit Bharat, or developed nation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Yet, this narrative, often repeated by influential policymakers<\/strong>, distorts the judiciary\u2019s role within a constitutional democracy and <strong>misdiagnoses the deeper causes of India\u2019s developmental challenges.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Blaming the Judiciary: A Convenient Narrative<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister\u2019s Economic Advisory Council, recently described the <strong>judicial system as<\/strong> <strong>the single biggest hurdle to India\u2019s progress.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>His claim, made at the Nyaya Nirman conference, is <strong>emblematic of a broader rhetoric<\/strong> that simplifies complex governance issues into a tale of judicial obstruction.<\/li>\n<li>While Sanyal\u2019s call for introspection within the justice system is not entirely misplaced, <strong>his critique rests on sweeping generalisations that ignore the judiciary\u2019s structural constraints<\/strong> and the government\u2019s own complicity in creating them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Flawed Criticisms and Misplaced Blame<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Sanyal\u2019s argument falters at several points. <strong>For instance, his reference to the failure of pre-suit mediations under Section 12A<\/strong> of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 <strong>misattributes legislative inefficacy to judicial enforcement. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The provision mandating mediation was not devised by the courts but enacted by Parliament; <strong>judges merely apply what legislators enact.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Blaming the judiciary for the shortcomings of poorly drafted laws obscures the real issue<\/strong>: the persistent problem of imprecise and reactive law-making in India.<\/li>\n<li>Similarly, <strong>Sanyal\u2019s so-called 99-to-1 problem, that regulations are overcomplicated to prevent misuse by a minority,<\/strong> misunderstands the source of legal complexity.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>judiciary does not create this problem;<\/strong> rather, it inherits it from a legislative process prone to overregulation and vagueness.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>courts often serve as the last line of defence<\/strong> when ambiguous laws collide with administrative arbitrariness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Government as the Largest Litigant and Myths About Workload and Vacations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>The Government as the Largest Litigant<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>inefficiency of India\u2019s justice system cannot be analysed in isolation<\/strong> from the behaviour of its largest litigant, the government itself.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Union and State authorities frequently clog court dockets<\/strong> with frivolous or avoidable litigation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Ministries pursue appeals against routine orders, <\/strong>tax departments challenge minor decisions, and public enterprises engage in contractual disputes that could easily be resolved administratively.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Ordinary citizens, teachers, pensioners, and public servants, are compelled to litigate<\/strong> for basic entitlements that should be delivered as a matter of course.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>resulting backlog is less a failure of judicial lethargy<\/strong> than a reflection of bureaucratic irresponsibility and the absence of litigation discipline within government machinery.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Myths About Workload and Vacations<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Another popular misconception concerns the supposed indolence of judges<\/strong>. Critics often cite short court hours and long vacations as evidence of inefficiency.<\/li>\n<li><strong>This perception, however, ignores the invisible labour that underpins judicial work<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judges routinely hear between 50 to 100 cases a day,<\/strong> requiring extensive preparation, research, and deliberation outside formal court hours.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Vacations, far from being leisure periods,<\/strong> often serve as time to write reserved judgments and manage pending caseloads.<\/li>\n<li>Considering the crushing volume of cases and persistent vacancies, <strong>Indian judges work under some of the most demanding conditions in the world.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Broader Problems Faced by Indian Judiciary<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Structural Flaws in Law-Making<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Much of the burden on the judiciary arises not from <strong>inefficiency but from legislative and administrative incoherence. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Recent criminal law reforms, which merely rebranded colonial-era codes as sanhitas without substantive innovation<\/strong>, exemplify the government\u2019s penchant for cosmetic change.<\/li>\n<li>Likewise, <strong>the proposed Income-Tax Act of 2025, marketed as a simplification effort<\/strong>, merely substitutes one set of technical ambiguities for another.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Replacing legally entrenched terms like notwithstanding with irrespective may appear modern<\/strong>, but it generates fresh uncertainty and invites new rounds of litigation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Such instances reveal that the roots of legal confusion lie in imprecise drafting<\/strong>, not in judicial interpretation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>The Real Crisis: Under-Resourced Courts<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Acknowledging the judiciary\u2019s limitations is essential<\/strong>, but criticism must be grounded in reality.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judicial delays are undeniable, yet they stem from chronic underfunding, outdated infrastructure,<\/strong> and inadequate staffing, issues squarely within the executive\u2019s control.<\/li>\n<li>Vacancies in the lower judiciary, where most citizens encounter the justice system, remain alarmingly high.<\/li>\n<li><strong>These courts bear the brunt of procedural inefficiency, operating with minimal resources<\/strong> while shouldering an overwhelming share of India\u2019s litigation load. Reform, therefore, must begin with capacity building, not vilification.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>narrative that India\u2019s judiciary is the single biggest hurdle<\/strong> to development is <strong>both misleading and dangerous. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>It <strong>diverts attention from the deeper structural flaws<\/strong> in governance, legislation, and administration.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The courts are imperfect, yes, but they mirror rather than create the inefficiencies<\/strong> that plague India\u2019s institutions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Calling Out the Criticism of the Indian Judiciary\u00a0FAQs<\/strong><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Q1. <\/strong>Why blaming the judiciary for India\u2019s slow development is misguided?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Blaming the judiciary is misguided because many of the system\u2019s problems arise from poor governance, vague laws, and excessive government litigation, not from judicial inefficiency itself.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2. <\/strong>What are the examples to show that legislative flaws are wrongly attributed to the courts?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, noting that it was created by Parliament, not by the judiciary, so its failure reflects poor drafting, not judicial obstruction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3. <\/strong>How does the government contribute to judicial delays? <br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>The government contributes to delays by being the largest litigant, filing unnecessary appeals, and forcing citizens to go to court for basic entitlements.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4. <\/strong>What are some common misconceptions about judges\u2019 work?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Judges handle massive caseloads and often work beyond court hours to write judgments and study cases.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5. <\/strong>What is the true path toward a \u201cViksit Bharat\u201d?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>True progress lies in strengthening judicial independence and improving governance, not in weakening or blaming the courts.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/calling-out-the-criticism-of-the-indian-judiciary\/article70132288.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">The Hindu<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><strong>Reforming Passive Euthanasia in India<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The U.K.\u2019s proposed <strong>Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill<\/strong> allows physician-assisted dying for mentally competent adults with less than six months to live, pending House of Lords approval. This marks a major ethical and legal step aligning with trends in several Western nations.<\/li>\n<li>In contrast, <strong>India recognizes only passive euthanasia<\/strong> through Supreme Court rulings, avoiding active euthanasia due to cultural sensitivities, institutional limitations, and socio-economic realities.<\/li>\n<li>This article highlights how India, while refraining from adopting active euthanasia like the U.K., must reform its passive euthanasia framework.<\/li>\n<li>It explores the ethical, legal, and procedural challenges that make current provisions inaccessible and proposes digital, institutional, and educational reforms to ensure dignity in dying while safeguarding against misuse.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>India\u2019s Ethical Conservatism on Euthanasia: Law in Principle, Barriers in Practice<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>While passive euthanasia is legally recognised in India, stringent procedures\u2014<strong>advance directives, dual medical boards, and occasional judicial oversight<\/strong>\u2014render it practically inaccessible.<\/li>\n<li>Families often make end-of-life decisions informally, exposing doctors to legal risk and undermining the law\u2019s humane intent.<\/li>\n<li>In contrast, the U.K.\u2019s progressive model rests on robust healthcare and institutional safeguards.<\/li>\n<li>India\u2019s fragmented system, coupled with social and religious sensitivities, makes active euthanasia risky, potentially coercing the vulnerable.<\/li>\n<li>Though <strong>Article 21 ensures the right to die with dignity<\/strong>, <u>it does not extend to a right to be killed<\/u>.<\/li>\n<li>Hence, India\u2019s cautious stance reflects ethical prudence aligned with its socio-economic realities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Strengthening India\u2019s Passive Euthanasia Framework through Digital and Ethical Reforms<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Instead of moving toward active euthanasia, <strong>India should improve its passive euthanasia system<\/strong> by making it more humane, transparent, and efficient.<\/li>\n<li>Experts agree that the current process is overly complicated.<\/li>\n<li>A <strong>national digital portal linked with Aadhaar<\/strong> could allow patients to easily create, update, or revoke advance directives, with doctors verifying mental capacity and intent online.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Hospital ethics committees<\/strong>\u2014comprising senior doctors, a palliative care specialist, and an independent member\u2014should be empowered to approve life-support withdrawal within 48 hours, while exceptional cases undergo higher review.<\/li>\n<li>Rather than relying on <strong>slow and ineffective ombudsman models<\/strong>, India could adopt a decentralised oversight mechanism using hospital-based digital dashboards and independent medical auditors.<\/li>\n<li>To prevent misuse, <strong>essential safeguards like a seven-day cooling-off period<\/strong>, psychological counselling, and palliative care reviews must be retained.<\/li>\n<li>Such reforms would balance compassion with caution and align India\u2019s end-of-life care system with global best practices.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Ensuring Dignity in Dying: The Road Ahead for India<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>India must extend its <strong>constitutional promise of dignity in life to dignity in dying by making passive euthanasia truly workable<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Rather than adopting the U.K.\u2019s active euthanasia model, India should focus on digital reforms, empowering hospital-based ethics committees, and creating efficient yet non-burdensome oversight mechanisms.<\/li>\n<li>These measures align with Indian values, protect against misuse, and give patients greater autonomy.<\/li>\n<li>Equally important is integrating end-of-life ethics and legal education into medical training, ensuring doctors are equipped to handle such sensitive decisions.<\/li>\n<li>Public awareness campaigns should also promote open discussion on advance care planning.<\/li>\n<li>Only through trust, awareness, and compassionate implementation can India make its end-of-life care system both humane and effective.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>India\u2019s focus should remain on refining passive euthanasia through digital systems, ethical oversight, and awareness, ensuring end-of-life care is compassionate, accessible, and consistent with constitutional dignity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Reforming Passive Euthanasia in India FAQs<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What recent legislative move by the U.K. reignited global debate on euthanasia?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The U.K.\u2019s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill permits physician-assisted dying for competent adults expected to live less than six months, pending final approval.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> How does India\u2019s stance on euthanasia differ from that of the U.K.?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> India recognises only passive euthanasia through Supreme Court rulings, avoiding active euthanasia due to moral, cultural, and institutional constraints.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> Why is passive euthanasia difficult to implement in India?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Complex procedures involving advance directives, dual medical boards, and judicial oversight make it slow and inaccessible, forcing families to act outside the legal framework.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What digital reforms are proposed to improve India\u2019s euthanasia process?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Creating a national Aadhaar-linked portal for advance directives and empowering hospital ethics committees for quick, transparent decisions within 48 hours are key proposals.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> What additional measures are needed to ensure ethical end-of-life care in India?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Integrating end-of-life ethics in medical training, promoting public awareness, and maintaining safeguards like counselling and cooling-off periods are essential for humane implementation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/op-ed\/reforming-passive-euthanasia-in-india\/article70131004.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Daily Editorial Analysis 7 October 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":20,"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-66975","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\/66975","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\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66975\/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=66975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}