{"id":83679,"date":"2026-01-22T10:24:10","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T04:54:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=83679"},"modified":"2026-01-22T12:09:26","modified_gmt":"2026-01-22T06:39:26","slug":"daily-editorial-analysis-22-january-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/daily-editorial-analysis-22-january-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Daily Editorial Analysis 22 January 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><strong>Judicial Removal &#8211; Tough Law with a Loophole<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The notice of an <strong>impeachment<\/strong> motion by 107 Members of Parliament against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has renewed debate on the constitutional process for judicial <strong>removal<\/strong> in India.<\/li>\n<li>The charges include alleged violations of <strong>secular<\/strong> constitutional principles and <strong>bias<\/strong> towards a particular community.<\/li>\n<li>Beyond the specific allegations, the episode raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the constitutional framework governing judicial <strong>accountability<\/strong> while preserving <strong>independence<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Constitutional and Legal Framework for Judicial Removal and Meaning of Misbehaviour and Judicial Standards<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Constitutional and Legal Framework for Judicial Removal<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>Constitution<\/strong> of India lays down the procedure for removing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 124, 217, and 218.<\/li>\n<li>While the term impeachment is reserved for the President, the process for judges emphasises removal through a rigorous parliamentary mechanism.<\/li>\n<li>Article 124(5) empowers <strong>Parliament<\/strong> to regulate procedures for investigating and proving <strong>misbehaviour<\/strong> or <strong>incapacity<\/strong>, leading to the enactment of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.<\/li>\n<li>This framework reflects a deliberate intent to make judicial removal rare and difficult, thereby safeguarding the <strong>judiciary<\/strong> from political pressure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Meaning of Misbehaviour and Judicial Standards<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The Constitution does not define misbehaviour, leaving interpretation to judicial pronouncements.<\/li>\n<li>The Supreme Court has clarified that not every judicial error qualifies as misconduct.<\/li>\n<li>Only wilful abuse of office, lack of <strong>integrity<\/strong>, <strong>corruption<\/strong>, or conduct involving moral turpitude meets the constitutional threshold.<\/li>\n<li>These standards underline the principle that judges must adhere to exceptionally high ethical norms, as public trust in the judiciary depends on both actual and perceived impartiality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Procedural Safeguards and the Role of Parliament<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The removal process is deliberately stringent. A motion requires signatures from at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.<\/li>\n<li>Final removal demands an address passed by each House with a special majority, ensuring broad political <strong>consensus<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Upon admission of a motion, an inquiry <strong>committee<\/strong> comprising senior judicial figures conducts a detailed <strong>investigation<\/strong> into the charges.<\/li>\n<li>This multi-layered process is designed to prevent frivolous or politically motivated attempts to unseat judges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Critical Flaw: Discretion at the Threshold Stage<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>A serious flaw emerges at the preliminary stage. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the <strong>Speaker<\/strong> of the Lok Sabha or the <strong>Chairman<\/strong> of the Rajya Sabha has the power to admit or reject the motion at the outset.<\/li>\n<li>The Act does not specify criteria for this decision, granting wide <strong>discretion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>If the motion is rejected, the process ends immediately, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations or the number of MPs supporting it.<\/li>\n<li>This unfettered discretion risks <strong>arbitrariness<\/strong>, especially since the presiding officer acts as a statutory authority rather than merely as a parliamentary functionary.<\/li>\n<li>The absence of defined standards for <strong>admissibility<\/strong> makes the decision vulnerable to political considerations, undermining the credibility of the process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Constitutional Inconsistency and Democratic Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Article 124(5) authorises Parliament to regulate procedures for investigation and proof, but it does not explicitly empower the presiding officer to block the process altogether.<\/li>\n<li>Proof of misbehaviour is meant to arise from an impartial inquiry, not from a preliminary political filter.<\/li>\n<li>The power to reject a motion at the <strong>threshold<\/strong> therefore appears inconsistent with the constitutional design.<\/li>\n<li>The implications for <strong>democracy<\/strong> are significant. If the executive or ruling majority influences the presiding officer, a constitutionally sanctioned mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability can be rendered ineffective.<\/li>\n<li>This does not strengthen judicial independence; instead, it weakens public confidence by insulating potentially errant judges from scrutiny.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>India\u2019s impeachment framework reflects a strong commitment to judicial independence through high thresholds and complex procedures.<\/li>\n<li>However, the unchecked discretion vested in the Speaker or Chairman at the preliminary stage disrupts the intended <strong>balance<\/strong> between independence and accountability.<\/li>\n<li>Revisiting this provision is essential to prevent misuse and to ensure that serious allegations against judges receive impartial examination.<\/li>\n<li>Meaningful <strong>reform<\/strong> in this area would strengthen constitutional governance without compromising the autonomy of the judiciary.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Judicial Removal \u2014 Tough Law with a Loophole\u00a0FAQs<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Q1. <\/strong>What constitutional term is used for the impeachment of judges in India?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> The Constitution uses the term removal rather than impeachment for judges.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> On what grounds can a judge of the higher judiciary be removed?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> A judge can be removed only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> Which law governs the procedure for the removal of judges?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> The procedure is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What is the main procedural flaw in the current impeachment process?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> The Speaker or Chairman has unchecked discretion to reject the motion at the threshold stage.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> Why is this flaw considered constitutionally problematic?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>It allows political discretion to prevent an impartial investigation into serious allegations against judges.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/judicial-removal-tough-law-with-a-loophole\/article70534542.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">The Hindu<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><strong>Lowering The Age of Juvenility for Crimes is a Step Back<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>A decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or the JJ Act, introduced the <strong>\u201ctransfer system<\/strong>,\u201d a new Private Member\u2019s Bill seeks to lower the age threshold for trying juveniles as adults.<\/li>\n<li>The proposed amendment would allow children aged 14\u201315, accused of \u201cheinous\u201d offences, to face adult criminal trials and prison, raising concerns about weakening rehabilitation-focused principles in favour of punishment.<\/li>\n<li>This article highlights why the proposal to lower the age of juvenility for heinous offences marks a regressive shift in India\u2019s justice system, undermining rehabilitation, equality, and child-centred principles without empirical justification.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Juvenile Justice and the Transfer System<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>India\u2019s juvenile justice framework is rooted in the belief that children differ developmentally from adults and are capable of reform.<\/li>\n<li>However, after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the JJ Act, 2015 introduced the \u201c<strong>transfer system<\/strong>\u201d, allowing 16\u201318-year-olds accused of heinous offences to be assessed for adult trials.<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Punitive Shift Without Evidence<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The introduction of the transfer system lacked empirical support.<\/li>\n<li>It was opposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which found it inconsistent with domestic and international juvenile justice standards.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Arbitrariness in Assessments<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Preliminary assessments by Juvenile Justice Boards focus on abstract notions like \u201cmental capacity\u201d and \u201cunderstanding consequences,\u201d rather than developmental stages or lived realities.<\/li>\n<li>No reliable tools exist to measure such capacities retrospectively.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Inconsistent and Discriminatory Outcomes<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Decisions often hinge on subjective factors\u2014such as remorse or awareness of wrongdoing\u2014leading to unequal treatment of similarly placed children.<\/li>\n<li>Outcomes depend more on discretion than conduct.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Risks of Expanding the Transfer System<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Lowering the age threshold to 14 would extend arbitrariness to younger children, undermining rehabilitation, reinforcing inequality, and weakening the core principles of care, reform, and reintegration in juvenile justice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Adolescent Crime: Claims vs Evidence<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Rising Crime Narrative Questioned<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The proposed Bill claims a rise in serious crimes by 14\u201316-year-olds to justify lowering the age threshold. However, official data does not support this assertion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>What NCRB Data Shows<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>In 2023, cases involving Children in Conflict with the Law formed just 0.5% of total crimes.\n<ul>\n<li>Nearly 79% of apprehended children were aged 16\u201318, while only 21% were between 12\u201316, contradicting claims about younger adolescents driving crime.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Structural Vulnerability, Not Criminality<\/strong>\u00a0<\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Many adolescents enter the justice system due to poverty, neglect, and unmet welfare needs. Often, they are both in conflict with the law and in need of care and protection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Risks of Lowering the Age Threshold<\/strong>\u00a0<\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Reducing the age limit would pull vulnerable children into harsher punitive processes without improving the system\u2019s ability to distinguish vulnerability from culpability.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Harmful Impact of Adult Criminal Processes<\/strong>\u00a0<\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Exposure to adult trials disrupts education, harms cognitive development, creates stigma, and causes psychological trauma.\n<ul>\n<li>Illegal detention in police stations and adult prisons shows systemic failure, not the need for harsher laws.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Prioritising Reform Over Punishment<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Bill pushes juvenile justice toward earlier punishment, shifting focus away from early intervention, family support, education, mental health care, and systemic reform.<\/li>\n<li>Diluting child-centred protections undermines core principles of child rights.<\/li>\n<li>Addressing serious harm requires strengthening institutions and communities, not withdrawing safeguards from children least equipped to face punitive consequences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Lowering the age of juvenility prioritises punishment over protection, ignoring evidence, developmental science and systemic failures, and risks harming vulnerable children instead of strengthening institutions meant to support them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Lowering The Age of Juvenility for Crimes is a Step Back FAQs<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What change does the proposed Private Member\u2019s Bill seek to introduce in the JJ Act?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans. <\/strong>The Bill proposes lowering the age threshold from 16 to 14 years, allowing younger adolescents accused of heinous offences to be tried as adults.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> Why is the \u2018transfer system\u2019 under the JJ Act criticised?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans. <\/strong>It relies on subjective assessments of mental capacity, lacks scientific tools, produces inconsistent outcomes, and shifts focus away from rehabilitation toward blame and punishment.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> Does crime data support the claim that younger adolescents commit more serious crimes?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans. <\/strong>No. NCRB data shows that children aged 16\u201318 account for most juvenile cases, while those aged 12\u201316 form a much smaller proportion.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> How does adult criminal trials affect adolescents?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans. <\/strong>Adult trials disrupt education, harm psychological development, create stigma, and expose children to trauma, often without addressing underlying vulnerabilities.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> What is suggested as a better alternative to lowering the age threshold?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans. <\/strong>Strengthening early intervention, family support, education, mental health services, and accountability within juvenile institutions offers a more effective and rights-based response.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/op-ed\/lowering-the-age-of-juvenility-for-crimes-is-a-step-back\/article70534626.ece#:~:text=A%20Private%20Member&#039;s%20Bill%20introduced,seven%20years&#039;%20imprisonment%20or%20more.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><strong>TH<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Daily Editorial Analysis 22 January 2026 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-83679","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\/83679","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=83679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83679\/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=83679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}