Why in news?

The Bombay High Court set aside an order placing an adult trafficking survivor in a protective home for a year, holding that such custody without legal justification violates constitutional liberty.

The court clarified that protective homes under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA) are meant for rehabilitation, not confinement.

The court stressed that an adult survivor’s fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom under Article 19 prevail over statutory powers, and do not stand suspended merely because she was trafficked.

The case arose after a police raid in Maharashtra, where the petitioner alone was detained on the assumption that her lack of family support or income made her likely to return to sex work—an assumption the court found impermissible.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Limits of Custody Under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
• When Care Becomes Detention: The Court’s Test
• What the Law Penalises Under PITA?

Limits of Custody Under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act

• What PITA Allows After Rescue - Under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, a rescued person may be kept in safe custody only briefly if immediate production before a magistrate is not possible. This initial custody is capped at 10 days.
• Magisterial Inquiry and Time Limits - Once produced before a magistrate, the law requires an inquiry. During this stage, interim custody can continue, but only up to three weeks. Any placement beyond this period is not automatic.
• When Long-Term Placement Is Permissible
  • A longer stay in a protective home — ranging from one to three years — can be ordered only if the magistrate records a clear finding that the person is “in need of care and protection”.
  • The Bombay High Court stressed that these timelines reflect legislative intent to prevent rescue from turning into confinement.
• Protective Homes vs Corrective Institutions
  • PITA draws a clear distinction:
    • Protective homes (Section 2(g)) are meant for care and rehabilitation of victims.
    • Corrective institutions (Section 2(b)) are for detention of offenders and are governed by Section 10A.
  • Only persons found guilty of offences under the Act can be sent to corrective institutions.
• Constitutional Rights of Adult Survivors
  • For adults, constitutional freedoms under Article 19 — including the right to move freely, choose residence, and pursue a livelihood — remain intact even after trafficking.
  • Unlike children, adults cannot be subjected to extended state control without consent.
• Consent as the Core Principle
  • The High Court held that “care” for an adult survivor must be voluntary.
  • Once an adult clearly expresses a desire to leave a protective home, continued confinement ceases to be care and becomes unlawful detention.
  • In this case, the woman’s repeated refusal to stay made her consent central, not optional.

When Care Becomes Detention: The Court’s Test

• Substance Over Labels - The Bombay High Court clarified that the difference between care and detention depends on effect, not terminology.
  • Care involves voluntary support — counselling, shelter with consent, and help in rebuilding life — while detention is defined by compulsion.
• Consent and Autonomy as the Core - When an adult is kept in a protective home against her wishes, with restrictions on movement and choice, it amounts to detention.
  • Such restraint on personal liberty must be justified with concrete material on record, not assumptions.
• Victims Are Not Offenders - The court cautioned against treating trafficking survivors as offenders by default.
  • The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA) “was not meant to punish a victim of sexual exploitation”.
  • In the absence of conduct attracting penal provisions, restrictions cannot be imposed.
• Role of the Magistrate - Under PITA, only a magistrate, after conducting a proper inquiry, can determine whether a rescued person genuinely requires care and protection.
  • Any placement in a protective home must follow this satisfaction and statutory safeguards.
• When Detention May Be Justified?
  • Detention may be permissible only in limited situations:
    • Evidence of a condition impairing decision-making capacity
    • A demonstrable danger to society if released
    • The person being an accused in a criminal case
• Why Detention Failed in This Case?
  • None of these conditions were met. There was no medical evidence of incapacity, no finding of danger to others, and the woman was not accused of any offence.
  • The court rejected speculative fears — including the possibility of returning to sex work — as insufficient grounds for confinement.

What the Law Penalises Under PITA?

• Prostitution Is Not a Crime - The PITA does not criminalise prostitution itself. Courts have clarified that being engaged in sex work does not automatically make a person an offender.
• Focus on Exploitation, Not Individuals – The Act targets the commercial exploitation surrounding prostitution. The law is aimed at those who control, profit from, or facilitate exploitation — not the individuals trapped within it.
• Who the Act Criminally Targets?
  • Criminal liability arises for:
    • Managing or running a brothel
    • Living off the earnings of another person’s prostitution
    • Procuring or trafficking persons for prostitution, even with apparent consent
    • Detaining a person for sexual exploitation
• Limited Punishable Conduct - Certain acts linked to prostitution are punishable only when they affect public order — such as soliciting in public spaces or operating near schools, hospitals, or places of worship.
• Courts stress these are regulatory, not moral, provisions.
• Poverty Is Not Grounds for Detention
  • The Bombay High Court rejected the view that economic vulnerability justifies confinement.
  • Lack of family support or fear of returning to sex work cannot override constitutional rights.
  • Poverty may warrant assistance, but never the curtailment of liberty.

Why in news?

Punjab Chief Minister said the Centre has agreed in principle to move the security fence closer to the India–Pakistan border, a step that could restore access to farmland lying beyond the fence.

The proposal, discussed earlier but never implemented, revives questions around its origins, security concerns, and why relief for border farmers has remained elusive.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Why Punjab’s Border Fence Has Become a Farmers’ Flashpoint?
• Why the Punjab Border Fence Was Built?
• Kapoor Committee and Farmer Compensation
• Farmers Seek Fence Shift Amid Evolving Security Landscape
• Why the Border Fence Remains Unmoved?

Why Punjab’s Border Fence Has Become a Farmers’ Flashpoint?

• 
• Punjab’s 532-km border with Pakistan is secured by a barbed-wire fence that, due to uneven terrain, lies anywhere from a few feet to nearly 2 km inside Indian territory.
• As a result, about 21,500 acres of privately owned farmland and 10,000 acres of government land fall between the fence and the International Border.
• Farmers cultivating this land face strict restrictions. Access gates open only for limited hours on fixed days, with caps on the number of people and tractors allowed.
• Each tractor must be escorted by two BSF Kisan Guards, further limiting daily access.
• Border farmers have long demanded that the fence be moved closer to the International Border to ease cultivation.

Why the Punjab Border Fence Was Built?

• The electrified barbed-wire fence along the Punjab–Pakistan border was first installed in 1988 across Gurdaspur, Amritsar and Ferozepur, at the height of militancy in the state. Its primary purpose was to curb infiltration, militancy and drug smuggling.
• At the time, farmers did not protest, as dissent was often viewed with suspicion during those volatile years.
• In 1992, farmers formed the Border Area Sangharsh Committee to raise their concerns, but the issue has remained unresolved.
• With the later creation of Tarn Taran, Fazilka and Pathankot districts, the fence now affects border communities across six districts in Punjab.

Kapoor Committee and Farmer Compensation

• The Kapoor Committee, headed by then Punjab Chief Secretary S L Kapoor, was constituted in 1986 to examine the difficulties faced by farmers whose land lay beyond the border fence.
• It recommended compensating affected farmers, leading to the release of an inconvenience allowance of ₹2,500 per acre in 1988.
• However, farmers say this compensation has been irregular and not paid annually.

Farmers Seek Fence Shift Amid Evolving Security Landscape

• Punjab’s border farmers argue that advances in surveillance and drone monitoring have changed the nature of border security, making the current fence alignment outdated.
• With hundreds of acres trapped behind the fence, farmers face daily checks, delays in using machinery, and hurdles in transporting crops.
• They say shifting the fence closer to the International Border would ease cultivation without compromising security, given improved monitoring and adequate defence resources.

Why the Border Fence Remains Unmoved?

• Despite repeated proposals, shifting the Punjab border fence has not materialised due to practical and administrative hurdles.
• BSF officials say the nearly 40-year-old fence is in poor condition and moving it would require dismantling and rebuilding it with newly procured barbed wire.
• Farmers, meanwhile, remain sceptical, noting that similar assurances have surfaced during elections in the past without any follow-through, including in 2023 when a possible fence shift was announced but never implemented.

Context:

• A decade after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or the JJ Act, introduced the “transfer system,” a new Private Member’s Bill seeks to lower the age threshold for trying juveniles as adults.
• The proposed amendment would allow children aged 14–15, accused of “heinous” offences, to face adult criminal trials and prison, raising concerns about weakening rehabilitation-focused principles in favour of punishment.
• This article highlights why the proposal to lower the age of juvenility for heinous offences marks a regressive shift in India’s justice system, undermining rehabilitation, equality, and child-centred principles without empirical justification.

Juvenile Justice and the Transfer System

• India’s juvenile justice framework is rooted in the belief that children differ developmentally from adults and are capable of reform.
• However, after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the JJ Act, 2015 introduced the “transfer system”, allowing 16–18-year-olds accused of heinous offences to be assessed for adult trials.
• Punitive Shift Without Evidence
  • The introduction of the transfer system lacked empirical support.
  • It was opposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which found it inconsistent with domestic and international juvenile justice standards.
• Arbitrariness in Assessments
  • Preliminary assessments by Juvenile Justice Boards focus on abstract notions like “mental capacity” and “understanding consequences,” rather than developmental stages or lived realities.
  • No reliable tools exist to measure such capacities retrospectively.
• Inconsistent and Discriminatory Outcomes
  • Decisions often hinge on subjective factors—such as remorse or awareness of wrongdoing—leading to unequal treatment of similarly placed children.
  • Outcomes depend more on discretion than conduct.
• Risks of Expanding the Transfer System
  • 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.

Adolescent Crime: Claims vs Evidence

• Rising Crime Narrative Questioned - The proposed Bill claims a rise in serious crimes by 14–16-year-olds to justify lowering the age threshold. However, official data does not support this assertion.
• What NCRB Data Shows - In 2023, cases involving Children in Conflict with the Law formed just 0.5% of total crimes.
  • Nearly 79% of apprehended children were aged 16–18, while only 21% were between 12–16, contradicting claims about younger adolescents driving crime.
• Structural Vulnerability, Not Criminality - 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.
• Risks of Lowering the Age Threshold - Reducing the age limit would pull vulnerable children into harsher punitive processes without improving the system’s ability to distinguish vulnerability from culpability.
• Harmful Impact of Adult Criminal Processes - Exposure to adult trials disrupts education, harms cognitive development, creates stigma, and causes psychological trauma.
  • Illegal detention in police stations and adult prisons shows systemic failure, not the need for harsher laws.

Prioritising Reform Over Punishment

• The Bill pushes juvenile justice toward earlier punishment, shifting focus away from early intervention, family support, education, mental health care, and systemic reform.
• Diluting child-centred protections undermines core principles of child rights.
• Addressing serious harm requires strengthening institutions and communities, not withdrawing safeguards from children least equipped to face punitive consequences.

Conclusion

• 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.

Why in News?

• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), in its State of the Economy article, has assessed India’s macroeconomic conditions based on high-frequency indicators (for December 2025).
• The assessment points towards continued growth momentum, resilient domestic demand, and optimism about future prospects, despite elevated global geopolitical and geo-economic uncertainties.
• The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and not the official stance of the RBI.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Key Growth Signals - Domestic Economy
• Macro-Economic Indicators
• Global Geopolitical and Geo-Economic Risks
• Structural Reforms and Policy Environment (2025)
• External Sector and Trade Strategy
• Challenges and Way Ahead
• Conclusion

Key Growth Signals - Domestic Economy:

• Robust demand conditions: High-frequency indicators suggest sustained buoyancy in growth impulses. Demand conditions remain upbeat, supported by consumption and economic activity.
• Revival of rural demand:
  • Retail automobile sales recorded broad-based growth across categories.
  • Key drivers are GST rate cuts improving affordability, year-end promotional offers, and pre-buying ahead of expected price hikes in January.
• Commercial activity and logistics: Retail commercial vehicle sales maintained strong growth. It indicates improved goods movement, and strong underlying economic activity.
• GST and formal economy indicators: E-way bill generation continued healthy growth due to GST rate rationalisation, stock clearance, and firms pushing year-end sales.

Macro-Economic Indicators:

• GDP growth: (National Statistics Office’s first advance estimate)
  • The real GDP growth is estimated at 7.4% in 2025-26, up from 6.5% a year ago.
• Inflation trends: In December, the consumer price index (CPI) inflation rose to 1.3% driven by a lower rate of deflation in the food group along with an increase in core index.

Global Geopolitical and Geo-Economic Risks:

• Key developments at the start of 2026:
  • US intervention in Venezuela
  • Ongoing Middle East conflict
  • Uncertainty over Russia–Ukraine peace deal
  • Escalation of the Greenland dispute
• Implications:
  • Elevated geo-economic risks
  • High policy uncertainty
  • Potential spillover effects on trade, energy, and capital flows

Structural Reforms and Policy Environment (2025):

• Major reforms highlighted:
  • Rationalisation of tax structures
  • Implementation of labour codes (labour market reforms)
  • Financial sector deregulation
• Expected outcomes:
  • Improved growth prospects
  • Enhanced productivity
  • Strengthened medium- to long-term economic fundamentals 

External Sector and Trade Strategy:

• Export diversification: India has made significant efforts to diversify exports (like focusing on new markets in Africa and Latin America).
• Trade negotiations: Ongoing talks with 14 countries/groups, covering nearly 50 nations, including European Union (EU), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), United States.

Challenges and Way Ahead:

• Persisting global geopolitical instability: Strengthen domestic demand while boosting export competitiveness.
• Risk of imported inflation: Tackling imported inflation by a mix of monetary (interest rate cuts), fiscal (reducing import duties) and trade policies (boosting domestic supply chains).
• Balancing growth and inflation management: Maintain a balanced policy approach between innovation vs. stability, and growth vs. consumer protection.
• Ensuring inclusive and sustainable growth: Deepen structural reforms to enhance productivity and resilience.
• Managing policy uncertainty: Continue prudent regulation and supervision.

Conclusion:

• The RBI’s State of the Economy assessment underlines the resilience of the Indian economy, supported by strong domestic demand, improving rural consumption, robust GST indicators, and sustained reform momentum.
• While global uncertainties remain elevated, India’s macroeconomic fundamentals and reform-oriented policy framework provide credible grounds for optimism, positioning the economy for stronger and more stable long-term growth.

Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior government approval before investigating certain corruption allegations against public servants.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Prevention of Corruption Act (Background, Legislative Aspects, Judicial Precedents, Court’s Verdict, Implications, Way Forward)

Background of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) is India’s primary anti-corruption legislation dealing with offences committed by public servants in the discharge of official duties.
• The Act traces its origin to the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee (1962-64), which highlighted the need for a strong legal framework to curb corruption in public life.
• The PCA consolidated existing laws and introduced penal provisions covering bribery, criminal misconduct, and abuse of official position.
• Under the Act, a “public servant” is defined broadly to include government employees, judges, and individuals entrusted with public duties.
• Over time, judicial scrutiny and legislative amendments have shaped the balance between protecting honest officials and ensuring accountability for corrupt practices.

Section 17A and Its Legislative Intent

• Section 17A was introduced through the 2018 amendment to the PCA.
• It mandates that prior approval of the appropriate government is required before initiating any inquiry or investigation against a public servant for decisions or recommendations made while discharging official functions.
• The legislative rationale behind Section 17A was to address concerns that honest officers were becoming risk-averse due to fear of frivolous or malicious investigations.
• Policymakers argued that excessive scrutiny could lead to a “policy paralysis” where officials avoid taking bold or time-sensitive decisions, particularly in areas involving economic or administrative discretion.
• It is important to note that the PCA already contains Section 19, which requires prior sanction before a court can take cognisance of corruption offences.
• Section 17A extends this protection to the pre-investigation stage.

Judicial Precedents on Prior Sanction

• The Supreme Court has historically been cautious about executive controls over corruption investigations.
• In Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1998), the Court struck down the “Single Directive,” which required prior government approval before investigating senior officials.
• Similarly, in Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI (2014), Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, requiring prior approval to investigate senior officers, was declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14 (equality before law).
• These rulings established that differential treatment based on rank or position in corruption investigations undermines the principle of equal accountability under law.

Supreme Court’s Split Verdict on Section 17A

• A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict while examining the constitutional validity of Section 17A.
• One judge upheld the provision, reasoning that prior approval is necessary to protect honest officers from harassment and to prevent a “play-it-safe” bureaucratic culture.
• However, this view came with a significant caveat: the approval mechanism should involve an independent body, such as the Lokpal or Lokayukta, rather than being controlled solely by the executive.
• The other judge struck down Section 17A as unconstitutional, describing it as a reintroduction of previously invalidated safeguards in a new form.
• The judgment held that Section 17A fails the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 and that sufficient protection already exists under Section 19 of the PCA at the prosecution stage.
• As a result of the split verdict, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

Governance and Accountability Implications

• The case raises critical governance questions.
• On the one hand, excessive procedural safeguards may dilute the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies and delay investigations.
• On the other hand, unchecked investigations can be misused as tools of political or administrative vendetta.
• The debate highlights the need to balance administrative efficiency, decision-making autonomy, and constitutional principles of equality and rule of law.
• The outcome of the larger Bench decision will significantly shape the future of corruption control mechanisms in India.

Way Forward and Systemic Reforms

• Beyond the constitutional question, the case underscores broader systemic issues in tackling corruption.
• Speedy investigation and time-bound trials are essential to ensure deterrence.
• Additionally, mechanisms to penalise false or malicious complaints can help prevent abuse of the investigative process without shielding genuine wrongdoing.
• Institutional independence, transparency in approval mechanisms, and judicial oversight will be crucial in maintaining public trust in anti-corruption frameworks.

Context

• The notice of an impeachment 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 removal in India.
• The charges include alleged violations of secular constitutional principles and bias towards a particular community.
• Beyond the specific allegations, the episode raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the constitutional framework governing judicial accountability while preserving independence.

Constitutional & Legal Framework for Judicial Removal and Meaning of Misbehaviour & Judicial Standards

• Constitutional and Legal Framework for Judicial Removal
  • The Constitution of India lays down the procedure for removing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 124, 217, and 218.
  • While the term impeachment is reserved for the President, the process for judges emphasises removal through a rigorous parliamentary mechanism.
  • Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate procedures for investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity, leading to the enactment of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
  • This framework reflects a deliberate intent to make judicial removal rare and difficult, thereby safeguarding the judiciary from political pressure.
• Meaning of Misbehaviour and Judicial Standards
  • The Constitution does not define misbehaviour, leaving interpretation to judicial pronouncements.
  • The Supreme Court has clarified that not every judicial error qualifies as misconduct.
  • Only wilful abuse of office, lack of integrity, corruption, or conduct involving moral turpitude meets the constitutional threshold.
  • 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.

Procedural Safeguards and the Role of Parliament

• 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.
• Final removal demands an address passed by each House with a special majority, ensuring broad political consensus.
• Upon admission of a motion, an inquiry committee comprising senior judicial figures conducts a detailed investigation into the charges.
• This multi-layered process is designed to prevent frivolous or politically motivated attempts to unseat judges.

The Critical Flaw: Discretion at the Threshold Stage

• A serious flaw emerges at the preliminary stage. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the power to admit or reject the motion at the outset.
• The Act does not specify criteria for this decision, granting wide discretion.
• If the motion is rejected, the process ends immediately, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations or the number of MPs supporting it.
• This unfettered discretion risks arbitrariness, especially since the presiding officer acts as a statutory authority rather than merely as a parliamentary functionary.
• The absence of defined standards for admissibility makes the decision vulnerable to political considerations, undermining the credibility of the process.

Constitutional Inconsistency and Democratic Implications

• 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.
• Proof of misbehaviour is meant to arise from an impartial inquiry, not from a preliminary political filter.
• The power to reject a motion at the threshold therefore appears inconsistent with the constitutional design.
• The implications for democracy are significant. If the executive or ruling majority influences the presiding officer, a constitutionally sanctioned mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability can be rendered ineffective.
• This does not strengthen judicial independence; instead, it weakens public confidence by insulating potentially errant judges from scrutiny.

Conclusion

• India’s impeachment framework reflects a strong commitment to judicial independence through high thresholds and complex procedures.
• However, the unchecked discretion vested in the Speaker or Chairman at the preliminary stage disrupts the intended balance between independence and accountability.
• Revisiting this provision is essential to prevent misuse and to ensure that serious allegations against judges receive impartial examination.
• Meaningful reform in this area would strengthen constitutional governance without compromising the autonomy of the judiciary.

About Parbati Giri:

• Also known as the Mother Teresa of Western Odisha, and epithet as ‘Banhi-kanya’ (daughter of fire) Giri was a prominent freedom fighter from Odisha.
• While she fought for the Independence of India, after independence she dedicated her life as a social worker.
• In 1942, she was in the forefront of agitation following Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Quit India’ movement.
• She had also staged an agitation at Bargarh Court to persuade the lawyers to boycott the erstwhile court in defiance of the British.
• She was inspired by Gandhian philosophy.
• Giri was also associated with freedom fighter and social reformer Rama Devi.
• Dearly known as Badamaa (Big mother) to the inmates of her Ashrams, the legendary woman from the Western Odishan district Bargarh worked for the poor and downtrodden till her death.

About Mount Aso:

• It is located in Kumamoto-ken (prefecture), Kyushu, Japan.
• It is the largest active volcano in Japan.
• It has the largest active crater in the world.
• Its caldera (bowl-shaped volcanic depression) marks the original crater and contains the active volcano of Naka-dake and numerous hot springs.
• The crater is inhabited and is crossed by roads and railways.
• Its mountain pastures are used for cattle raising and dairy farming.
• The volcano is the central feature of Aso-Kuju National Park.
• The volcano has been erupting sporadically for decades, most recently in 2021.

About Souparnika River:

• The Souparnika River, also known as Sowparnika, is a west-flowing river in Karnataka.
• It is surrounded by lush green forests of the Western Ghats.
• It originates from the Kodachadri Hills in the Western Ghats, and merges with the Arabian Sea.
• A unique feature of the Souparnika River is observed near Maravanthe Beach, where the river runs parallel to the Arabian Sea, separated by a narrow stretch of land.

About World Economic Forum (WEF):

• It is an international non-profit organisation that brings together business, political, and social leaders to discuss global challenges.
• Established in 1971, the WEF promotes stakeholder theory for broader societal impact.
• This body has a concise mission: ‘To improve the state of the world through public-private cooperation’.
• WEF addresses major global concerns such as climate change, economic challenges, and global security.
• The organization is funded by its diverse membership, which includes prominent global figures.