Site icon Fusion IAS

The Hindu Editorial Analysis: January 10, 2025

The Hindu Editorial Analysis: January 10, 2025
Share It

The Hindu editorials are a crucial resource for understanding key national and international issues. This analysis simplifies complex topics, highlights key points, and offers critical insights, making it an essential tool for competitive exam preparation like UPSC CSE and developing a well-rounded perspective on current affairs.


1. Damage control: On the Tibet earthquake


2. We need accessibility rules that are based on principles

  1. Supreme Court Judgment:
    • In the case of Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, was violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
    • The Court held that Rule 15 was discretionary, whereas the Act imposed mandatory obligations on the government regarding accessibility guidelines for various departments.
  2. Accessibility vs. Reasonable Accommodation:
    • Accessibility is considered a right, integral to substantive equality and recognized in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
    • Reasonable accommodation is a facilitator of substantive equality, offering specific solutions for individuals facing challenges. Both concepts are complementary and interdependent.
  3. Evolution of Accessibility:
    • The understanding of accessibility has evolved, especially in the context of digital accessibility with the rise of Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT).
    • Accessibility must evolve to overcome both tangible (physical) and intangible (attitudinal) barriers, reflecting the changing understanding of disability.
  4. Universal Design:
    • Universal design now includes all vulnerable communities, such as women, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
    • Accessibility rules should be applicable across all groups, ensuring inclusivity and recognizing that disability can arise from various circumstances, not just from permanent impairments.
  5. Social Audit Compliance:
    • Section 48 of the RPwD Act mandates regular social audits of schemes to ensure they meet the needs of persons with disabilities.
    • The lack of standardized guidelines under the RPwD Rules has led to inconsistencies and confusion in conducting social audits, which need clear guidelines to improve service delivery.
  6. Need for Understandable Accessibility Rules:
    • Previous accessibility rules were complex and unclear, with contradictory mandates from multiple ministries, leading to confusion and increased compliance costs for establishments.
    • The new accessibility rules must be direct, understandable, and practical for effective implementation. A nodal authority, such as sector regulators or the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, should adjudicate on rules.
  7. Deadline for New Guidelines:
    • The deadline for releasing the new accessibility guidelines is February 2025, with potential extensions.
    • Both private and public sectors, including finance, technology, and transport, need to collaborate on setting minimum accessibility rules, as mandated by the RPwD Act, and as a market incentive to cater to a large population base.

3. Section 152 of BNS should not become a proxy for sedition

  1. Supreme Court’s Suspension of Sedition Trials:
    • In 2022, the Supreme Court suspended criminal trials under Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC, awaiting reconsideration of the law by the government.
    • Following this, the Union Home Minister announced the repeal of sedition as an offense.
  2. Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
    • Section 152 criminalizes acts exciting secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, as well as encouraging separatism or endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
    • While not formally termed as ‘sedition,’ Section 152 still carries the risk of misuse to suppress legitimate dissent, similar to sedition laws.
  3. Problems with Section 152:
    • Vague Language: The statute does not define what constitutes ‘endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,’ which makes the provision open to expansive and subjective interpretation.
    • Low Threshold for Offense: The inclusion of the term ‘knowingly’ significantly lowers the threshold for criminal liability, particularly in social media cases, where sharing content with a wide reach can lead to prosecution.
    • Potential for Abuse: The lack of causal linkage between speech and actual consequences makes Section 152 susceptible to abuse, as seen with the historical misuse of sedition laws.
  4. Historical Context of Sedition Laws:
    • The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from 2015-2020 shows that despite hundreds of arrests under sedition laws (Section 124A of IPC), very few convictions occurred, highlighting the misuse of the provision.
  5. Judicial Precedents on Free Speech:
    • Previous Supreme Court rulings, such as in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), Javed Ahmad Hazam v. State of Maharashtra (2024), and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), have focused on the actual consequences of speech rather than criminalizing speech without a clear impact.
    • These precedents argue for a direct causal nexus between the speech and its repercussions for it to be considered an offense.
  6. Need for Guidelines on Section 152:
    • Given the potential for abuse, the enforcement authorities must apply Section 152 with caution. The Supreme Court should craft guidelines to demarcate the boundaries of terms like ‘endangerment’ and ‘unity,’ ensuring that the provision is not misused as a proxy for sedition.
  7. Importance of Free Expression:
    • The concept of a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ as articulated by Justice Holmes in Abrams v. United States, stresses the importance of providing space for diverse thoughts and expressions in a democratic society. This should be protected, particularly in the age of social media, to foster critical debate and innovation.

4. Is India Open to the Idea of Dual Citizenship?

1. Current Scenario

2. Constitutional and Legal Framework

3. Challenges and Concerns

4. Diaspora’s Role

5. Examples of Citizenship Decisions

6. Minister’s Perspective

7. International Practices

8. Expert Opinions

9. Conclusion


Disclaimer:
This analysis is based on the editorial content published in The Hindu and is intended solely for informational and educational purposes. The views, opinions, and interpretations expressed herein are those of the author of original article. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original article for complete context and to exercise their own judgment while interpreting the analysis. The analysis does not constitute professional advice or endorsement of any political, economic, or social perspective.


Follow Fusion IAS

Telegram

Youtube

Twitter/X

Exit mobile version