15 January 2026

• Nationwide anti-government protests have erupted in Iran, one of the largest in recent years.
• The protests have been met with a severe security crackdown, resulting in over 2,500 deaths, as reported by Human Rights Activists News Agency.

Key Developments

• Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, head of Iran’s judiciary:
  • Signalled swift trials and executions for detained protesters.
  • Emphasised speed to ensure “deterrent effect”.
• His statement defied warnings issued by Donald Trump, who:
  • Warned of “very strong action” if executions take place.
  • Indicated possible military consequences, following earlier US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in 2025.

Internal Situation in Iran

• Mass funeral held for ~100 security personnel killed during protests.
• Public fear persists:
  • Presence of plainclothes security forces.
  • Anti-riot police and Basij reportedly withdrawn to barracks.
• Strong regime symbolism:
  • Funeral attended by tens of thousands with images of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Role of Technology & Information Control

• Government imposed an internet shutdown to curb mobilisation.
• Starlink:
  • Offered free satellite internet in Iran.
  • Helped activists bypass censorship.
• Iranian authorities reportedly raiding buildings to locate Starlink dishes
  • Satellite dishes are officially illegal, though enforcement was lax earlier.

Regional & International Concerns

• Arab Gulf states:
  • Urging restraint on the US.
  • Fear escalation into a full-blown regional war.
• Reflects broader Middle East instability, especially post Israel–Iran confrontation (June 2025).

Implications

• Human Rights
  • Raises concerns over:
    • Due process
    • Right to life
    • Use of capital punishment as political repression
• International Law & Diplomacy  Potential violation of:
  • ICCPR obligations (fair trial, freedom of expression).
  • Highlights limits of external pressure on authoritarian regimes.
• Technology & Governance
  • Satellite internet as a tool of:  
  • Digital resistance
  • Transnational activism
• Challenges state sovereignty vs. global tech platforms.

Prelims Pointers

• Basij → Paramilitary volunteer force linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
• Starlink → Satellite-based internet by SpaceX.  
• Mohseni-Ejei → Head of Iran’s judiciary.
• Protests → Among deadliest in Iran’s recent history.

SC TO RULE ON EUTHANASIA PLEA

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Supreme Court of India to pass final order on a plea seeking passive euthanasia by withdrawal of artificial life support.
• Case involves a 31-year-old man in Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for over 13 years following severe brain injury.
• Bench personally interacted with parents and sibling to verify free, informed and unanimous consent.
• Primary and secondary medical boards unanimously recommended discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment.
• Centre supported the decision, stating continuation serves no therapeutic purpose.

Key Points

• Passive euthanasia: Withdrawal/withholding of life-support where recovery is medically impossible.
• Patient certified to be in irreversible PVS with no possibility of regaining consciousness.
• Decision based on:
  • Family consent
  • Medical board opinion
• Supreme Court’s procedural safeguards  Emphasis on dignity over mere biological survival
• Court recognised emotional, ethical and caregiving burden on ageing parents.

Static Linkages

• Article 21: Right to life includes right to live with dignity.
• Difference between:
  • Active euthanasia → illegal
  • Passive euthanasia → conditionally legal
• Living Will / Advance Medical Directive recognised by judiciary.
• Medical ethics principles:
  • Autonomy
  • Beneficence
  • Non-maleficence
• Judicial guidelines operate in absence of statutory law.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Protects human dignity.
  • Prevents unnecessary suffering. 
  • Respects family autonomy.
  • Clear medical and legal safeguards.
• Cons / Concerns
  • No comprehensive legislation on euthanasia.  
  • Risk of inconsistent application across States.  
  • Emotional burden on families making end-of- life decisions.
  • Limited access to palliative care in India.

Way Forward

• Enact a comprehensive End-of-Life Care law.
• Standardise medical board procedures nationwide.
• Promote awareness of Living Wills.
• Strengthen palliative and hospice care systems.
• Regular ethical training for doctors and legal authorities.

NO DEMAND TO SHARE PHONE CODE

• Reports claimed the Union Government planned to mandate source code disclosure by smartphone manufacturers.
• The claim was denied by the Government and the industry body Mobile and Electronics Association of India (MAIT).
• The controversy related to the Indian Telecom Security Assurance Requirement (ITSAR), 2023 issued by the National Centre for Communication Security (NCCS) under the Department of Telecommunications.
• An Office Memorandum (June 2025) amended ITSAR, removing all references to mandatory source code sharing.
• Smartphone security oversight has shifted from DoT to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
• Smartphones are currently exempt from the relevant certification scheme.

Key Points

• No mandatory source code disclosure is required under the amended ITSAR.
• Amendment mandates:
  • Internal security test report
  • Exclusion of Intellectual Property (IP) details
  • Mandatory summary of vulnerabilities classified by risk
• Government clarified consultations are non- binding and exploratory.
• Industry welcomed MeitY’s consultative and transparent approach.
• Earlier reports relied on the unamended April 2023 draft, which was never enforced.

Static Linkages

• Right to Privacy: Proportionality principle (Puttaswamy case).
• Cyber Security Framework:
  • National Cyber Security Policy, 2013  
  • CERT-In guidelines
• Telecom & Digital Governance:
  • Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (legacy regulation
  • Draft Telecommunications Bill (reform orientation)
• Intellectual Property Rights:
  • Trade secrets protection under TRIPS
• Global Practice:
  • Security audits preferred over blanket source code access.

Critical Analysis

• Advantages
  • Protects proprietary technology and innovation.
  • Enhances investor confidence and ease of doing business.
  • Aligns regulation with proportionality and global norms.
• Concerns
  • Reduced direct access for the State to verify device-level security.
  • Reliance on self-reported internal audits.
  • Absence of a comprehensive, binding smartphone security framework.

Way Forward

• Create a risk-based digital device security framework.
• Strengthen independent, accredited security testing labs.
• Institutionalise responsible vulnerability disclosure mechanisms.
• Ensure coordination among MeitY, CERT-In, and telecom regulators.
• Periodic updating of standards aligned with international benchmarks.

• University Grants Commission (UGC) notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026.
• Replaces/updates 2012 anti-discrimination regulations.
• Final rules modified after criticism of 2025 draft (exclusion of OBCs, vague definition, penalty for “false complaints”).

Key Provisions

• Coverage Expanded:
  • Caste-based discrimination includes SCs, STs, and OBCs.
• Definition of Discrimination:
  • Any explicit/implicit unfair, differential, or biased treatment.
  • Grounds: religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability.
  • Includes acts impairing equality in education and human dignity.
• Institutional Mechanism:
  • Mandatory Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) in every HEI.
  • Equity Committee under EOC.  
• Composition:
  • Chaired by Head of Institution.
  • Mandatory representation: SCs, STs, OBCs, Persons with Disabilities, Women.
• Functioning & Reporting:
  • Equity Committee: minimum two meetings/year.
  • EOC: bi-annual report to UGC.
• Monitoring & Enforcement:
  • National-level Monitoring Committee by UGC with statutory councils/commissions.
  • Penalties for non-compliance up to debarment from offering degrees/programmes.
• Dropped Clause:
  • No provision to penalise “false complaints”.

Static Linkages

• Article 14 – Equality before law.
• Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination; scope for affirmative action.
• Article 21 – Right to life includes human dignity (SC jurisprudence).
• Social Justice – Constitutional protection to SCs/STs/OBCs in education.
• Regulatory Oversight – Role of statutory bodies in maintaining standards.

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Aligns regulations with constitutional equality.  
  • Explicit inclusion of OBCs.
  • Institutionalises monitoring and accountability.
  • Clearer definition reduces ambiguity.
• Concerns
  • Implementation depends on institutional capacity.
  • Risk of formal compliance without substantive change.
  • No explicit time-bound grievance redressal.

Way Forward

• Detailed implementation guidelines by UGC.  
• Capacity-building & sensitisation in HEIs.
• Link compliance with NAAC accreditation.
• Ensure time-bound, transparent grievance redressal.
• Periodic review based on outcomes.

DELHI RIOTS CUSTODY INJUSTICE

Context of the News

• In January 2026, the Supreme Court decided bail pleas in the Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” case arising from protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
• Seven student activists were arrested in 2020 under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
• The accused had undergone more than five years of incarceration; trial has not yet commenced.
• The Court granted bail to five accused but denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
• The order has raised concerns regarding personal liberty, delay in trial, and interpretation of anti-terror laws.

Key Points

• Bail granted on grounds of prolonged incarceration to five accused.
• Bail denied to two accused citing alleged role in “conceptualising” the conspiracy.
• Court acknowledged right to re-apply for bail after one year on grounds of delay.
• Trial delay partly attributed to accused as well as systemic factors.
• Court adopted a broad interpretation of Section 15, UAPA.
• Bail governed by Section 43D(5), UAPA, requiring only prima facie satisfaction.

Static Linkages

• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• Right to speedy trial as a facet of Article 21
• Bail jurisprudence in criminal law
• Strict interpretation of penal statutes  
• Doctrine of proportionality
• Preventive detention vs punitive detention
• Reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights

Critical Analysis

• On Personal Liberty
  • Prolonged incarceration without trial undermines Article 21.
  • Differential bail treatment based on allegations raises equality concerns.
• On Interpretation of UAPA
  • Expansive reading of “terrorist act” risks conflating protest with terrorism.
  • Vague statutory language increases prosecutorial discretion.
• On Bail Jurisprudence
  • Section 43D(5) shifts balance heavily in favour of the State.
  • Prima facie test limits judicial scrutiny at bail stage.
• On Judicial Approach
  • Deferential acceptance of conspiracy allegations despite lack of direct evidence.
  • Limited consideration of realistic trial timelines despite large number of witnesses.
• Democratic Impact
  • Chilling effect on freedom of speech and peaceful protest.
  • Risk of normalising prolonged undertrial detention.

Way Forward

• Ensure time-bound trials in cases involving prolonged custody.
• Apply narrow and strict interpretation of penal provisions.
• Periodic judicial review of long-pending undertrial cases.
• Clear statutory distinction between violent acts and civil protests.
• Strengthen proportionality and liberty-centric constitutional interpretation.
• Institutional reforms to reduce trial delays in special laws.