CURRENT-AFFAIRS

Background

Since independence, "sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage" was not directly defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The judiciary relied on two primary sections to resolve such cases:

• IPC Section 375/376 (Rape): Used if the man obtained the woman's consent based on a 'misconception of fact.'
• IPC Section 90 (Validity of Consent): Provides that if consent is given under a misconception or fear, it is not 'free consent' in the eyes of the law.

Classifying such cases as 'rape' under the IPC not only complicated the judicial process but also created a social stigma for the accused and presented a severe challenge for the victim in providing evidence.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 69

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, effective from July 1, 2024, has filled this legal vacuum.

• Section 69: This section specifically penalizes sexual intercourse established by "promising to marry, promotion, employment, or by suppressing identity."
• Distinction: BNS has separated 'Rape' (Section 64) from 'Intercourse by Deceitful Means' (Section 69). This is an acknowledgement that where there is no use of force, the nature of the crime is 'fraud' (deceit).
• Penal Provision: It provides for imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine.

Recent Judicial Discourse: Karnataka High Court Decision

The Karnataka High Court recently set a significant precedent while interpreting Section 69.

• Case: A married woman (mother of two children) accused a lawyer of sexual exploitation on the promise of marriage.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice M. Nagaprasanna clarified that "The statute punishes deceit, not disappointment." If the complainant herself is not in a legal position to marry (due to a subsisting marriage), the claim of consent based on a 'promise of marriage' is 'logically impossible.'
• Significance: The court warned that criminal proceedings should not be used as an 'engine of harassment' or a 'weapon of retaliation.'

Guiding Principles of the Supreme Court

The Apex Court has established certain standards in cases like Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Sonu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh:

• Initial Mens Rea: The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to deceive from the very beginning of the relationship.
• Failure of Marriage vs. Deceit: If a marriage cannot take place due to social, familial, or other circumstances, it cannot be considered a criminal act.

Constitutional Rights and Human Dignity

• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): This includes 'Life with Dignity' and the 'Right to Privacy.' False allegations cause irreparable damage to an individual's social reputation, which is a violation of Article 21.
• Article 14 (Equality): Impartial application of the law is mandatory. A lack of a gender-neutral approach and the misuse of laws hurt constitutional equality.

NCRB Report

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), approximately 30% to 40% of rape cases registered in India are related to the 'promise of marriage.'

• Low Conviction Rate: The conviction rate in these cases is extremely low, indicating that most cases were either consensual or motivated by a sense of retaliation.

Micro-Analysis: 'Deceit' vs. 'Heartbreak'

Will this Weaken the Position of Women?

A serious question arises: will this decision make it difficult for women to obtain justice?

• Challenge: Proving 'intention' (Mens Rea) is difficult. This may cause genuine victims to struggle more to prove their case.
• Opportunity: It recognizes women as 'independent and discerning adults' (Agency), rather than just an 'object' that can be easily led astray. It challenges the patriarchal notion that a woman does not understand the consequences of her consent.

Way Forward

• Preliminary Inquiry: According to the guidelines of Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP, a thorough investigation prior to the FIR should be mandatory in such sensitive cases.
• Legal Literacy: Making youth aware of the legal implications of consent.
• Judicial Balance: Courts should examine the difference between 'free consent' and 'consent obtained by deceit' on a case-by-case basis through evidence (such as chat screenshots, witnesses, etc.).

Conclusion

The goal of BNS Section 69 is to provide protection to genuine victims, but its misuse gives rise to 'procedural injustice.' The decision of the Karnataka High Court is a necessary 'check and balance.' The justice system must ensure that it respects consent, punishes deceit, and discourages retaliation. Ultimately, the purpose of the law is not to impose 'social morality' but to ensure 'constitutional justice.'

Contemporary Context

A new discourse has emerged between the Indian Judiciary and the Legislature following the notice submitted by 107 Members of Parliament (INDIA bloc) in the Lok Sabha to Speaker Om Birla, seeking the removal of Madras High Court Judge, Justice G.R. Swaminathan.

Charges: The notice levels 13 serious allegations against the judge, primarily including:

• Acting against secular constitutional principles.
• Favoring advocates of a particular community.
• Violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

Constitutional Terminology: ‘Impeachment’ vs. ‘Removal’

In common parlance, the term ‘impeachment’ is often used for removing judges, but technically, the position in the Constitution is different:

• Impeachment: In the Indian Constitution, this term is used only for the procedure of removing the President under Article 61.
• Removal: The Constitution uses the term ‘Removal’ for judges.
• Articles: The procedure for removal is provided under Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges and Article 217(1)(b) for High Court judges. Notably, according to Article 218, the procedure for removing a High Court judge shall be the same as that for a Supreme Court judge.

Step-by-Step Procedure for Removal of a Judge (Judges Enquiry Act, 1968)

Removing judges is one of the most difficult legal processes in India, designed to be complex to maintain the independence of the judiciary:

• Notice: A motion signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha is submitted to the Speaker/Chairman.
• Discretion of the Speaker: The Speaker can accept or reject the motion (this is where the first 'loophole' for the failure of the process begins).
• Inquiry Committee: Upon acceptance, a 3-member committee (comprising an SC judge, a Chief Justice of an HC, and a distinguished jurist) investigates the charges.
• Parliamentary Voting: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion must be passed in both Houses of Parliament by a ‘Special Majority’ (a majority of the total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).
• President’s Order: Finally, the President issues the order for removal.

Legal Analysis

Despite the seriousness of the provisions, there are several hurdles in the process:

• Political Will: Securing a special majority is extremely difficult, especially in the era of coalition governments.
• Lack of Time: Parliament often lacks the time required for detailed discussions on such motions, which can leave the process hanging in the middle.
• Judicial Accountability vs. Independence: The process is so rigorous that to date, no judge in the history of India has been removed through this process (the cases of V. Ramaswami and Soumitra Sen are examples where the process could not be completed).

Dignified Life and the Credibility of the Judiciary

• Protection of the Constitution: If a judge is accused of acting "against secularism," it is a direct strike on the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Judicial Propriety: The removal process is not merely a punishment but a mechanism to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Constitutional Dignity and Citizens' Rights

• Article 21 and Impartial Justice: An impartial judiciary is an integral part of a dignified life for citizens. If a judge acts against constitutional principles (such as secularism), it is an assault on the judicial trust of the public.
• Rule of Law: The concept of the ‘Rule of Law’ remains secure only when judges consider themselves accountable to the law.

Way Forward

The Justice Swaminathan case has once again brought the issue of judicial accountability to the center stage.

• Need for Reform: Experts suggest that laws like the ‘Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill’ should be reconsidered to provide a middle path for punishments less severe than removal (such as a warning or withdrawal from work).

Conclusion

The independence of the judiciary is paramount, but it cannot be ‘unbridled.’ Constitutional balance will be maintained only when the conduct of judges is fully dedicated to their oath of the Constitution.

Introduction

In Indian parliamentary democracy, a fundamental question arises regarding the 'Special Address' of the President and the Governor (Articles 87 and 176): "If the constitutional head is merely a 'mouthpiece' of the elected government and cannot change even a single word in the draft prepared by the Cabinet, then what is the necessity of this symbolic formality?" Currently, incidents of skipping portions or making changes in the address by Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar have turned this constitutional question into a national debate.

Contemporary Context: The 'Address' at the Center of Controversy

What transpired in the Legislative Assemblies of Tamil Nadu and Kerala in January 2026 is the peak of bitterness in Center-State relations:

• Tamil Nadu: Governor R.N. Ravi refused to read the speech, stating it contained "misleading facts." He challenged constitutional tradition by walking out of the House.
• Kerala: Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan publicly "corrected" the Governor's speech because the Governor had skipped certain important policy portions approved by the Cabinet.

Historical Context

This controversy is not new. After the 1967 assembly elections, when non-Congress governments (Samyukta Vidhayak Dal governments) were formed in several states, the conflict between Governors and State governments began.

• First Conflict: In 1967, West Bengal Governor Dharma Vira refused to read those parts of the speech prepared by the government which criticized the Central government.
• Constitutional Tradition: India has adopted Britain's Westminster model, where the 'Crown' (King/Queen) reads the government's speech without any changes. In India, too, the tradition has been that the Governor cannot include their 'personal views' (Mann Ki Baat) in the speech.

Governor: Agent of the Center or Constitutional Bridge?

The most controversial dimension of the Governor's post is their appointment by the Central government.

• Crisis of Bias: If a Governor tries to impose their personal ideology or the Center's instructions on the policies of the State government, it hurts the spirit of 'Cooperative Federalism.'
• Constitutional Role: The Governor's function is not to monitor the government's functioning but to ensure that the government functions according to the Constitution. Adding or skipping anything on their own in the address is considered an insult to the 'elected mandate.'

Review: Is this Practice Now Irrelevant?

Former President R. Venkataraman called it a "relic of the British era" and a "meaningless formality." There are several arguments behind this:

• Symbolism vs. Autonomy: If the Governor is merely a rubber stamp, this expenditure of time and resources appears irrational.
• Stage for Conflict: Currently, this practice has become a stage for political wrestling instead of healthy discussion.
• Option: The President and Governors already have the right to send messages to or address the House under Articles 86 and 175. Removing the mandatory address (Articles 87/176) could reduce constitutional crises.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court, in the case of Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974), clarified that the President and Governors shall exercise their powers only on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The address is the 'policy' of the government, not the 'opinion' of the Governor.

Way Forward

The following steps are essential to bridge the growing gap between the Governor and State governments:

• Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission: Consultation with the Chief Minister and the selection of impartial individuals must be mandatory in the appointment of the Governor.
• Constitutional Amendment: Is it time to reconsider the necessity of Article 176? As suggested by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, ending this formality could eliminate a major cause of controversy.

Conclusion

The Judiciary and the Legislature must understand that the post of the Governor is for the protection of the Constitution and not to become a parallel center of power to the elected government. Constitutional balance will be maintained only when 'decorum' and 'tradition' are followed not only in letter but also in spirit.

Context:

The concept of juvenile justice in India has been based on the philosophy that "children are amenable to reform and should not be punished like adults."

• JJ Acts, 1986 and 2000: These laws emphasized rehabilitation. The Act of 2000 explicitly fixed the age of a juvenile at 18 years.
• The 2012 Turning Point: Following public outcry after the Delhi gang rape case (Nirbhaya case), there was a demand for stricter laws. This resulted in the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

'Transfer System'

The 2015 Act introduced the 'Transfer System' for the first time in Indian law.

• Process: When a juvenile between 16 to 18 years commits a 'heinous crime' (offences with a minimum punishment of 7 years), they are not sent directly to jail.
• Preliminary Assessment: The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducts an inquiry into whether the juvenile had the mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of the offence.
• Role of Children's Court: If the JJB suggests treating them as an adult, the case is transferred to the 'Children's Court.' Here, the court decides whether they should be tried as an adult or dealt with as a child by being sent to a reform home.

New Private Member’s Bill

A Private Member’s Bill recently introduced in Parliament has further intensified this debate. Its key points are:

• Reduction in Age Limit: A proposal to lower the eligibility age for the 'Transfer System' from 16 to 14 years for heinous crimes.
• Stringent Punishment: Bringing 14-15-year-old juveniles under the ambit of adult prisons and regular judicial processes.

NCRB and Other Reports

• NCRB Data: According to reports, crimes committed by juveniles account for a small fraction (approximately 1%) of total crimes. However, a slight increase has been observed in heinous cases like murder and rape. Among juvenile crimes, 'crimes against property' (theft, snatching) are more prevalent than 'heinous crimes' (murder, rape).
• Cases of Children below 16: Experts argue that crimes committed at the age of 14-15 are often the result of poor upbringing, poverty, and lack of education, rather than an innate criminal tendency. Children in this age group often become easy targets for 'organized criminal gangs.' They are incited to commit crimes with the lure of legal leniency.

Note: The question here is whether the punishment should be given to the child or to the 'mastermind' who used them as a pawn?

Causes and Solutions for Rising Juvenile Crimes

Causes:

• Socio-Economic Conditions: Children living in slums coming into contact with anti-social elements.
• Digital Risks: Easy access to violent and obscene content on the internet.
• Psychological Factors: Lack of impulse control and peer pressure.

Solutions:

• Early Intervention: Counseling and moral education in schools.
• Community Policing: Stopping juveniles before they turn toward crime.
• Track Child Portal and Early Warning System: Identifying children who have dropped out of school or are from families with a criminal background to prevent them from turning to crime.

Constitutional Perspective and Human Rights

• Article 15(3): Right to make special laws for the benefit of children.
• Article 39(f): Directive to protect children from exploitation and provide them opportunities for development with freedom and dignity.
• UNCRC: India is a signatory to the 'United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,' which advocates prioritizing the rehabilitation of children under all circumstances.

Global Scenario:

Different countries have adopted various approaches regarding the age of juvenility:

• United States of America (USA): Many states have 'Transfer Laws' where children aged 14 (or less) can be tried in adult courts. The result? Recidivism rates among juveniles there are very high.
• United Kingdom (UK): The 'Age of Criminal Responsibility' here is only 10 years, which has been severely criticized by international human rights organizations.
• European Countries (e.g., Germany, Norway): There is such a high emphasis on rehabilitation that children up to 18 years are rarely sent to jail. Crime rates here are significantly lower compared to India and the USA.

Scientific and Psychological Basis

According to neuroscience, the 'prefrontal cortex' of the human brain (responsible for decision-making and impulse control) does not fully develop until the age of 25.

• Juveniles aged 14-15 are biologically more sensitive to 'risk-taking' and 'peer pressure.'
• Lowering their age in law ignores the reality of their biological development.

Will Lowering the Age Reduce Crime?

Criminology theory states that crime is reduced not merely by the 'fear of punishment' but by the 'fear of being caught' and 'social security.'

Impact of Jail:

Placing a 14-year-old in adult prisons or a harsh judicial process reduces their chances of 'reforming' to zero. Jails often become 'Crime Universities' for such children where they come into contact with hardened criminals and become more dangerous.

Key Points of the Debate: For and Against

Analysis and Way Forward

Lowering the age limit could prove to be a "step backward."

• Systemic Reform: The need is not to lower the age, but to improve the condition of 'Observation Homes.'
• Judicial Nuance: The Supreme Court, in the Barinder Singh case, also stated that 'preliminary assessment' should not be mechanical.
• Suggestion: The government should invest in 'preventive' measures instead of punitive laws.
• Strengthening the JJB: Instead of lowering the age, the current 'preliminary assessment' process needs to be made more scientific and psychologically based.
• Strict Punishment for Adult Criminals: There should be stringent provisions like 'Death Penalty' or 'Life Imprisonment' for those who use children for crimes (violation of Article 39e).

Conclusion

The civilization of any society is measured by how it treats its children. Lowering the age limit from 16 to 14 years may satisfy the sentiment of retribution, but it will not eliminate the roots of crime. The ultimate goal of the justice system should be 'social integration,' not permanent exclusion. In a diverse country like India, where poverty and lack of education are the primary causes of juvenile crime, merely lowering the age may be a 'popular' solution, but not an 'effective' one.

"The objective of justice is not merely to punish the offender, but to reduce crime in society. Sending children to jail is preparing a nursery for future criminals."

Context:

The recent white paper released by the Government of India, “Democratising Access to AI Infrastructure,” underlines a simple yet profound truth: "AI access is destiny." In the current global landscape, nations that control and make AI infrastructure accessible will shape the direction of innovation. The remaining nations will merely remain 'consumers of technology.'

Key Pillars of AI Infrastructure

According to the white paper, AI is not just a game of complex algorithms; it rests on three physical resources:

• Compute Power: High-performance Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) and supercomputers that process massive amounts of data.
• Datasets: High-quality, diverse, and localized data to train AI.
• Model Ecosystem: Access to foundational models upon which startups can build their specific solutions.

The Need for 'Democratisation':

Currently, the power of AI is concentrated in the hands of a handful of global tech giants.

• The Challenge of Monopoly: If compute power and data remain limited only to large companies, small startups and researchers will not be able to engage in competitive innovation.
• Democratisation of Access: The government aims to create a system where a rural entrepreneur gets the same compute power as a multinational corporation. This will be possible through the 'IndiaAI Mission.'

AI Infrastructure:

The white paper argues that compute power should now be considered a 'Sovereign Economic Asset,' much like electricity, water, or roads.

• Innovation vs. Dependence: Having its own infrastructure will make India self-reliant in the world of 'algorithms.' Without it, we will have to depend on foreign cloud servers (such as AWS or Google Cloud) for every small innovation.
• Data Sovereignty: Indigenous infrastructure will ensure that Indians' data remains within the country's borders and addresses security concerns.

Challenges and Obstacles

India faces three major challenges in building AI infrastructure:

• Capital Intensity: Building GPU clusters and data centers is extremely expensive.
• Energy Consumption: The need for continuous and clean energy for massive AI servers.
• Skill Gap: Lack of high-level expertise to operate cutting-edge hardware and models.

Way Forward

The following steps are essential to bring the government's vision to fruition:

• Public-Private Partnership: The government should collaborate with the private sector to establish 'compute clusters.'
• Indigenous Chip Development: Linking the 'Semicon India' mission with the production of AI-specific chips.
• Data Governance: Creating a framework where public data can be used for AI training without compromising privacy.

Conclusion

India's AI debate is often limited only to 'usage' (chatbots, automation), but the real power lies in the 'engine' (infrastructure) that runs these apps. The white paper clarifies that it is not the algorithms of the future, but the right of access to them, that will decide whether India becomes a 'master of technology' or merely a 'market.'

"Investment in AI infrastructure is not just an investment in technology, but an investment in India's future economic independence and sovereignty."

News

• Mozambican rights activist and humanitarian Graca Machel has been selected for the 'Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development' for the year 2025.
• The Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust made the official announcement on Wednesday (January 21, 2026).
• An international jury, chaired by former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, selected her for this honor in recognition of her transformative contributions to education, health, and humanitarian work (especially in conflict-affected areas).

Key Features of this Prize

• Prize Money: It includes a cash award of ₹1 crore, a trophy, and a citation.
• Specialty of the Trophy: The trophy is made of 'Banded Haematite Jasper' stone, which is estimated to be approximately 2,000 million years old.
• History: This prize was instituted in 1986 in memory of Indira Gandhi.

Why was Graca Machel selected?

Graca Machel is a global-level politician and activist who has dedicated her life to raising the voice of the marginalized:

• Educational Reform: As the first Education Minister of Mozambique (1975-1989), she increased the school enrollment rate from 40% to over 90% for boys and more than 75% for girls.
• Child Protection: In the 1990s, she led a significant United Nations (UN) study on the 'Impact of Armed Conflict on Children', which changed the global rules for the protection of children affected by war.
• Global Leadership: She is a founding member of 'The Elders' and works towards the economic empowerment of women through the 'Graca Machel Trust'.

Historical Pride

Graca Machel holds a unique record—she is the only woman in the world to have served as the 'First Lady' of two different countries:

1. Mozambique: As the wife of President Samora Machel.
2. South Africa: As the wife of President Nelson Mandela.

This award is a tribute to her lifelong struggle for self-rule, social justice, and the creation of a just world.