Daily News Capsules
1. Envoys called in, Delhi, Dhaka trade protests
India and Bangladesh on Tuesday brought in each other’s envoys to lodge protests over recent incidents impacting bilateral relations, even as demonstrations erupted in several parts of the country, including near the Bangladeshi mission in New Delhi, over the lynching of a Hindu man in Mymensingh. Indian high commissioner Pranay Verma was summoned to the foreign ministry in Dhaka by foreign secretary Asad Alam Siam in the morning to protest against “regrettable incidents” outside the Bangladesh high commission in New Delhi and vandalism at a visa centre in Siliguri. Bangladesh high commissioner Riaz Hamidullah was called in by B Shyam, the joint secretary heading the external affairs ministry’s Bangladesh-Myanmar division, late in the evening. He was informed of the need for a proper investigation into the recent killing of Bangladeshi radical student leader Sharif Osman Hadi, people familiar with the matter said. “Instead of jumping the gun and blaming India for Hadi’s death, there should be a thorough investigation to identify the perpetrators,” one of the people cited above said. They added that unsubstantiated allegations about an Indian hand in Hadi’s killing had triggered anti-India protests in Bangladesh, including an attempt by a mob to storm the Indian assistant high commission in Chittagong last week. The developments reflect fresh tensions straining bilateral ties, already at an all-time low. This was the second time in 10 days Verma was summoned in Dhaka, while Hamidullah was summoned to the external affairs ministry last week over the deteriorating security situation in Bangladesh.
Possible question
Diplomatic summoning of envoys is a recognised instrument of statecraft but also signals stress in bilateral relations. With reference to recent India–Bangladesh developments, examine the diplomatic, security, and domestic political dimensions of managing neighbourhood ties amid civil unrest and cross-border perceptions of interference.
2. Ikhlaq lynching case: Court rejects UP’s withdrawal plea
A fast-track court on Tuesday rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s attempt to withdraw the 2015 Mohammad Ikhlaq lynching case, calling it a “serious crime against society” with no reasoning for withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC. “The application of the prosecution under Section 321 CrPC is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the objections are also rejected,” the order said. The court, headed by additional district judge Saurabh Dwivedi, also directed that the case be heard on a day-to-day basis. “The prosecution is directed to expeditiously present the evidence of witnesses before the court, so that the case file may be disposed of at the earliest. This Court shall list the present case file on a day-to-day basis in the hearing register,” it added. The UP government, on September 12, moved an application to withdraw the case saying this was “for the restoration of social harmony”. Ikhlaq, 55, was lynched by a mob in Bisada village on September 28, 2015, after rumours that his family had stored beef at home. His son Danish was injured while trying to save his father. The attack triggered nationwide outrage over rising intolerance, with writers, filmmakers and scientists returning state awards in protest. One laboratory analysis after the lynching claimed the meat found in the refrigerator at Ikhlaq’s home was mutton. A subsequent laboratory report, first cited by lawyers representing the 18 accused in the case, claimed it was beef. To be sure, neither the provenance of the meat, nor where it was found are material to the case. The matter was initially listed for December 12, where counsel Yusuf Saifi, representing Ikhlaq, sought to file an objection against the government’s withdrawal application. The matter was then listed for December 18, during which senior Supreme Court counsel Andleeb Naqvi, on behalf of Saifi, took over the case and filed an application in which he said the state has “no concrete basis to file the withdrawal application” and was doing so for political reasons . Senior Counsel Hariraj Singh, representing the accused, objected to Naqvi’s application and sought time. The case was then listed for December 23.
Possible question
Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the prosecution to seek withdrawal of cases with court consent. In the context of the trial court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the Mohammad Ikhlaq lynching case, examine the limits of executive discretion in criminal prosecutions and the role of the judiciary in upholding rule of law and public interest in serious crimes.
3. J&J talc jury awards $1.56 billion to asbestos cancer victim
Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay about $1.56 billion to a Maryland woman who blamed the company’s talc-based baby powder for causing her asbestos-linked cancer, the largest such jury verdict for an individual in 15 years of litigation. Jurors in state court in Baltimore late Monday concluded that J&J, two of its units and spin-off Kenvue were liable for failing to warn Cherie Craft that its baby powder was tainted with asbestos, which researchers have linked to mesothelioma, a form of cancer. J&J officials say the parent company is responsible for covering the entire verdict since it agreed to indemnify Kenvue for all baby powder liabilities. The verdict comes as J&J has been pummelled by a recent spate of baby powder verdicts after it failed this year to use bankruptcy court to force a settlement of more than 70,000 lawsuits accusing the company of hiding the product’s cancer risks. The Maryland verdict eclipses a $966 million damage award in October to the family of a California woman who died of mesothelioma after using J&J’s talc-based baby powder for most of her life.
Possible question
Examine the legal and regulatory issues surrounding product liability, corporate disclosure, and the use (and limits) of bankruptcy mechanisms by large corporations to manage mass tort litigation.
4. Intake of international students could rise to 100K by 2030, says Niti Aayog
Government think tank Niti Aayog has projected a sharp rise in the number of inbound international students to India, estimating that enrollments could cross 100,000 by 2030 and reach between 790,000 and more than 1.1 million by 2047, provided the country undertakes “coordinated, student-centric and globally competitive reforms” across regulation, finance, branding and campus experiences. In a report released on Monday, titled ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education in India: Prospects, Potential, and Policy Recommendations’, Niti Aayog argues that internationalisation of higher education is “no longer optional but an imperative” for shaping globally competitive human capital. The report is based on an online survey of officials, vice-chancellors, senior administrators and policymakers, from over 160 Indian higher education institutions. According to the report, India continues to attract only a small share of globally mobile students. In 2024, “for every one international student coming to India, nearly 28 Indian students went abroad”, the report said, describing the imbalance as a structural challenge with long term implications for India’s talent ecosystem. The report recommends simplified visa processes, transparent fee structures, formal grievance redressal systems, quality housing, access to healthcare, part-time work and internships, and clear post-study pathways. The Study in India programme, it said, must be revamped into a single digital platform for admissions, visas, scholarships and student support.
Possible question
Analyse the structural, regulatory, and ecosystem constraints limiting India’s ability to emerge as an international higher-education destination. How can internationalisation of higher education strengthen India’s soft power and talent ecosystem?
5. SC pulls up U’khand over encroachment in Rishikesh forest
The Supreme Court on Monday deprecated the Uttarakhand government for allowing large-scale encroachment of forest land in Rishikesh, calling it “shocking” that the state had failed to reclaim thousands of acres despite the withdrawal of an earlier land allotment at least four decades ago. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi initiated suo motu proceedings after noting that over 2,800 acres of forest land, which reverted to the forest department in 1984, continued to remain under occupation of private parties. “What is shocking is that the Uttarakhand government is a silent spectator when thousands of acres of forest land is sought to be encroached,” said the bench, asking: “What has the state been doing all these years? We are going to take a strict view.” Directing immediate administrative action, the court ordered the state’s chief secretary and additional chief secretary to urgently examine the matter, ascertain the status of possession of the land, and submit a detailed report to the apex court by the first week of January. The bench also directed that all vacant portions of the land be taken into possession forthwith by the forest department. “All private parties are restrained from creating any third-party rights or alienating such land occupied by them as on date,” ordered the court. However, the court ordered status quo with respect to residential units that have already come up on the land, clarifying that for the present, no coercive action will be taken against occupants of constructed residential properties.
Possible question
Forest land encroachment reflects deeper governance and institutional failures. Examine the role of state governments, forest departments, and the judiciary in protecting forest land, with reference to the Supreme Court’s intervention in Uttarakhand.
Editorial Snapshots
A. Gaining ground at the grassroots
The results of the first phase of the Maharashtra local bodies polls are in step with the trend the state witnessed in the assembly polls held in November last year. Mahayuti, the alliance that included the BJP, Shiv Sena, and NCP, won a landslide 235 seats in the 288-seat legislative assembly. The Opposition alliance, Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), that included the Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP (Sharad Pawar), was reduced to a mere 50 seats. Despite infighting among allies and the resignation of two ministers, the Mahayuti has consolidated the gains of the assembly poll wins and expanded its footprint across Maharashtra. In contrast, the Congress has further shrunk, while the Sena (UBT) and NCP(SP) stare at irrelevance. The big win for the Mahayuti in the local body polls is not surprising. Voters tend to favour the ruling party/alliance in bypolls and local body elections: The Mahayuti won 207 of 288 municipal president posts, whereas the MVA was restricted to just 44. There are multiple takeaways from these results. One, the BJP is now the principal pole of Maharashtra politics: It won 117 municipal president posts and over 3,300 councillor seats, accounting for nearly 48% of the total councillors elected. Two, the decline of Congress is continuing and is visible across the state. Three, the cadres of NCP (SP) and Shiv Sena (UBT) have shifted to the groups led by Ajit Pawar and Eknath Shinde. The results offer a sobering thought for the MVA. Its obsession with the EC and electoral rolls seems to reflect on its lackadaisical preparation and the failure to regroup politically after the rout last year. Multiple factors influence elections, but voters reward parties that do the hard yards of outreach and agitation. The impending Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation polls, which are fought on distinct urban concerns, development agendas, and identity issues, offer the MVA an opportunity to regroup and fight even as the Mahayuti eyes the big prize.
Possible question
Analyse the significance of the Maharashtra local body poll results for party systems, opposition revival, and democratic accountability at the sub-state level.
B. Ending the male monopoly in bar councils in India
It seemed appropriate at the end of the year to hear the unmistakable sound of a glass ceiling crashing down. The blow was struck by a Supreme Court bench headed by chief justice Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Baghchi who were hearing pleas filed by women lawyers Yogamaya MG and Shehla Chaudhary. The women pointed out the painful fact that in the six decades since it was set up in 1961, the 20-member executive committee of the Bar Council of India had never elected a woman. Across India, only six of 441 elected representatives in 18 state bar councils are women. And 11 of these bar councils have zero women executive members. This exclusion is “structural, systemic and constitutionally indefensible,” senior advocate Shobha Gupta, arguing for Yogamaya, said. The judges agreed and have directed one-third of seats, including at least one office-bearer post, to be earmarked for women in the upcoming bar council elections. Even though the order does not, at the time of writing, apply to elections already underway in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, Gupta called the order “historical and monumental”. It will, she said, “Break the glass ceiling in the legal profession.” The bar council (not to be confused with the bar association) is the regulatory body for 20 lakh advocates and licenses lawyers, establishes professional standards, oversees legal education, and handles disciplinary proceedings. There’s been a fair amount of media attention on the lack of representation in the higher judiciary. Just 14% of judges in the high courts are women. In the Supreme Court, only one judge out of 34 is a woman. And yet it’s not that there are no capable women in the lower judiciary where judges are selected on merit and 35% are women. In a welcome change, the Supreme Court broke an old narrative of male monopoly in the bar councils. One can only hope it’s the first of many in the year to come.
Possible question
Critically examine the Supreme Court’s directive on women’s reservation in bar councils in the context of gender justice, institutional reform, and self-regulation of professions.
Fact of the day
Regional languages take precedence in LS addresses: Aided by live translation in 22 languages, more lawmakers in the Lok Sabha are making speeches in their mother tongue, the Lower House secretariat’s data has revealed. In the winter session of Parliament, 160 speeches –– fully or in part –– were delivered in languages other than Hindi and English in the Lok Sabha. Tamil topped the chart with 50 speeches, followed by Marathi (43) and Bengali (25). In the previous monsoon session, which was longer than the winter session, there were 13 Tamil speeches, 12 in Marathi and just 10 in Bengali, the data shows. A senior official at the secretariat said that previously, many MPs tried to speak in Hindi or English due to lack of interpreters or other support systems. Those who wished to speak in a regional language also had to give prior notice. Now, thanks to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, live translations are available in all 22 official languages and “there is a better system to support regional expressions”, added this person. With 84 translators available during Parliament sessions, the earlier technical issues have also been addressed. And no prior notice is required now. A total of 37 MPs spoke in languages other than Hindi or English during the recently concluded session. Data reviewed by HT shows that in the winter session, Bodo, Manipuri, Santhali, Assamese, Urdu, and Kannada have all been used. Live translation in all 22 official languages, a move pioneered by Birla, was rolled out on December 11, 2023, during the Question Hour. “It started with just 10 languages. Then, we had translations of 12 languages and now we have all 22 official languages and English,” said a second official
