26 July 2025: The Hindu Editorial

1. Parliament to Consider Motion to Remove Allahabad HC Judge

Source – Page 1 The Hindu

Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity, Judiciary

Context

Parliament will soon consider a bipartisan motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, following a cash recovery row at his residence.

Background:

• • Justice Varma, previously of the Delhi High Court, was found with half-burnt currency notes after a fire at his residence in March 2025.

  • 152 MPs from ruling and opposition parties have signed the removal motion, signifying rare unanimity.

Procedure:

• • As per Judges (Inquiry) Act, the motion is first taken up in Lok Sabha, then Rajya Sabha.

  • A three-member inquiry committee will include the CJI or a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.

Significance:

• • This is a major test of the judicial accountability mechanism laid out in the Constitution.

  • Demonstrates the Parliament’s power in maintaining the integrity of the higher judiciary.

Analysis:

• • Highlights the importance of due process and separation of powers.

  • Raises questions about transparency, the rare use of the removal mechanism, and the role of Parliament in judicial discipline.

Conclusion/Way Forward:

Ensuring thorough, unbiased inquiry is essential to maintain public faith in the judiciary and safeguard its independence.

Practice Question: “Examine the constitutional process for the removal of judges of higher courts in India. What safeguards exist to balance judicial accountability and independence? Critically comment in the context of recent developments.

2. Centre Flags ‘Harsh’ Penalties for Rape in Aparajita Bill, Governor Returns Legislation

Source -Page 1, 12, The Hindu

Topic:  GS2 – Polity and Governance (Legislature, Federalism); GS2 – Women’s Safety

Context

West Bengal’s Aparajita Women and Child Bill, mandating death penalty for certain rape offenses, has been returned by the Governor following concerns from the Home Ministry.

Background:

• • Passed unanimously in the Bengal Assembly after a brutal rape and murder case.

  • Bill proposes mandatory death penalty in specified cases and removes judicial discretion.

  • Also deletes provisions distinguishing age-based sentencing for rape victims under 16/12.

Concerns Raised:

• • Ministry of Home Affairs calls the bill’s penalties disproportionate and harsh.

  • Removal of judicial discretion and proportional sentencing violates established legal principles.

Analysis:

• • The debate spotlights the balance between punitive justice and rights of the accused.

  • Raises federal questions: Centre’s oversight in State legislation under Article 200, President’s assent.

  • Criticism from legal experts over “knee-jerk response” and lack of proportionality in sentencing.

Conclusion/Way Forward:

Uniformity in penal provisions, protection of judicial discretion, and measured sentencing are vital for upholding the principles of justice.

Practice Question: Discuss the constitutional and ethical challenges involved when legislatures enact mandatory death penalty provisions for sexual offenses.

Read more about –25 July 2025: The Hindu Editorial Analysis