17 January 2026

• The Supreme Court of India upheld the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to constitute an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for a removal motion against a High Court judge.
• The Court rejected the argument that safeguards for judicial independence can stall or paralyse the constitutional removal process.
• The case arose from allegations of judicial misbehaviour and conflicting outcomes of removal notices in the two Houses of Parliament.

Key Points

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 governs investigation into misbehaviour/incapacity of SC and HC judges.
• First proviso to Section 3(2) applies only when both Houses admit removal motions on the same day.
• Rejection of a motion in one House does not bar the other House from proceeding.
• Each House of Parliament enjoys procedural autonomy.
• Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha can exercise Chairman’s statutory functions during vacancy.
• Inquiry committee is recommendatory; final removal rests with Parliament.
• Reputational injury alone cannot invalidate a constitutionally sanctioned process.

Static Linkages

• Article 124(4): Removal of Supreme Court judges.
• Article 217(1)(b): Removal of High Court judges.
• Article 121: Restriction on parliamentary discussion of judges’ conduct (except removal).
• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Checks and balances between Legislature and Judiciary.
• Judicial Independence vs Accountability (NCERT + Laxmikanth).

Critical Analysis

• Ensures accountability of higher judiciary without procedural deadlock.
• Prevents misuse of statutory safeguards to delay constitutional processes.
• Reinforces autonomy of Parliament vis-à-vis internal procedures.
• Raises concern of possible politicisation of judicial removal motions.
• Highlights need to balance institutional independence with public accountability.

Way Forward

• Clarify ambiguities in Judges (Inquiry) Act through legislative refinement.
• Strengthen internal judicial complaint and ethics mechanisms.
• Ensure time-bound and transparent inquiry processes.
• Develop parliamentary conventions to avoid partisan misuse.
• Reinforce public trust through institutional accountability frameworks.

BUDGET 2026-27 TO KEEP THE GROWTH

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• India remained economically resilient in 2025 despite:
  • Global slowdown
  • High trade protectionism (e.g., steep U.S. tariffs)
• Growth supported by:
  • Public capital expenditure  
  • Structural reforms
  • Policy continuity
• Government emphasised reforms as a continuous national mission
• Budget 2026–27 seen as critical to:
  • Sustain growth
  • Strengthen domestic demand  
  • Enhance competitiveness

Key Points

• Prioritise growth-enhancing capital expenditure while maintaining fiscal consolidation
• Continue defence modernisation and indigenisation
  • Increase defence capital outlay share to ~30%
  • Enhance DRDO funding for indigenous R&D  
  • Expand defence industrial corridors to eastern India
• Strengthen defence exports
  • Private sector contributes ~65% of defence exports
  • Establish Defence Export Promotion Council
  • Target: ₹50,000 crore defence exports by 2028–29
• Secure critical minerals for energy transition and advanced manufacturing
  • Strengthen National Critical Mineral Mission
  • Introduce tailings recovery programme
  • Provide dedicated financing support
• Boost exports competitiveness
  • Increase allocation under RoDTEP 
  • Address inverted duty structures
• Improve technology and services ecosystem
  • Clarify Transfer Pricing norms for Global Capability Centres
• Promote drone sector   
• Increase PLI outlay
  • Create dedicated
  • Drone R&D fund  
• Deepen corporate bond markets
• Expand issuer base
  • Encourage insurance, PF investment in bonds, InvITs and REITs
• Address tax dispute pendency
  • Reduce backlog at CIT(A) level
  • Introduce dual-track dispute resolution  
  • Fill vacancies
• Improve trade facilitation
  • Relax AEO certification norms for new firms  
  • Continue customs tariff rationalisation

Static Linkages

• Public Capex multiplier – Economic Survey
• Defence indigenisation – Atmanirbhar Bharat
• Critical minerals – National Mineral Policy, Energy transition
• Corporate bond market – Financial sector reforms  
• Customs duties – Indirect tax reforms
• Tax dispute resolution – Ease of Doing Business

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Strengthens domestic demand drivers  
  • Enhances strategic autonomy
  • Crowds in private investment
  • Improves export competitiveness
  • Reduces dependence on banks for credit
• Challenges
  • Limited fiscal space
  • Execution capacity constraints   
  • Regulatory and tax uncertainty
  • Environmental concerns in mineral extraction

Way Forward

• Focus on quality of expenditure  Ensure policy certainty
• Strengthen institutional capacity
• Align industrial, trade and tariff policies  
• Balance growth with sustainability

ON MUTE

• The U.S. is increasingly using unilateral coercive measures (tariffs, sanctions, regime- change threats) instead of multilateral mechanisms.
• Under Donald Trump, the U.S. has:  Intervened in Venezuela.
  • Threatened sanctions and military action against Iran.
  • Proposed secondary sanctions (penalising third countries).
• India is directly affected due to:  
  • Energy imports (Iran/Russia).
  • Strategic investment in Chabahar Port.
  • Trade and technology dependence on the U.S.

Why is this important for India?

• Secondary sanctions mean India can be punished even if it is not violating international law, but merely trading with sanctioned countries.
• This directly impacts:
  • Energy security – higher costs, reduced suppliers.
  • Strategic connectivity – Chabahar is key to Afghanistan & Central Asia.
  • Foreign policy credibility – silence weakens India’s leadership image.
• The issue arises when India seeks a larger global role (e.g., hosting BRICS+).

Why is India responding cautiously?

• India wants to:
  • Avoid deterioration in India-U.S. relations.
  • Keep trade and technology cooperation alive.  
  • Protect Indian diaspora and students abroad.
• The government believes:
  • Open confrontation may invite economic retaliation.
  • Quiet diplomacy may yield better short-term outcomes.

What is the core problem with this approach?

• Strategic autonomy is diluted if India avoids defending its interests.
• Accepting extra-territorial sanctions:
  • Normalises violation of international law.  
  • Encourages future pressure.
•  Past experience (2019 oil import cuts) shows:
  • Compliance did not guarantee long-term benefits.
  • India incurred economic and strategic losses.

Static concepts involved

• Strategic Autonomy: Freedom to take independent decisions.
• UN Charter: Sovereignty and non-intervention.  
• WTO principles: Non-discrimination in trade.
• Energy security: Diversification and affordability.
• Ethics in IR: Balancing national interest with global justice.

What should India ideally do?

• Assert its interests without abandoning partnerships.
• Use:
  • UN, BRICS, SCO to oppose unilateral sanctions.
  • Legal and diplomatic tools instead of silence.
• Protect:
  • Legitimate trade.
  • Strategic infrastructure projects.  
• Balance pragmatism with principle.

• External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met visiting Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi in New Delhi.
• 18th India–Japan Strategic Dialogue co- chaired by the two Foreign Ministers.
• Decision to launch a new AI Dialogue led by Foreign Ministries (JS–DG level).
• Decision to set up a Joint Working Group (JWG) on Critical Minerals.
• Focus on economic security, resilient supply chains, Indo-Pacific cooperation, and multilateral coordination.
• Discussions aligned with shared vision of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) and the role of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.

Key Points

• AI Dialogue:
  • New institutional mechanism for cooperation in artificial intelligence governance, standards, and strategic applications.
• Critical Minerals JWG:
  • Cooperation on rare earth elements and critical minerals essential for clean energy, semiconductors, EVs, and defence.
• Economic Security Initiative:
  • Emphasis on public–private cooperation and de-risking supply chains.
  • Second Economic Security Dialogue scheduled for first half of 2026.
• Strategic Convergence:
  • Shared democratic values, maritime security interests, and Indo-Pacific outlook.
• Multilateral Cooperation:
  • Coordination in Quad, regional stability, and global governance reforms.

Static Linkages

• India–Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership (MEA): long-term cooperation in defence, infrastructure, technology, and people-to-people ties.
• Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP): Concept articulated by Japan; aligns with India’s SAGAR vision (Security and Growth for All in the Region).
• Critical Minerals: Identified by Ministry of Mines & NITI Aayog as strategic inputs for energy transition and Atmanirbhar Bharat.
• Artificial Intelligence Governance: Linked to India’s National Strategy for AI (NITI Aayog – “AI for All”).
• Economic Security: Covered in Economic Survey (supply chain resilience, de-risking vs de-globalisation).

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Enhances strategic autonomy through diversified supply chains.
  • Reduces over-dependence on single- country sources of critical minerals.
  • Positions India in global AI governance debates early.
  • Strengthens Quad’s economic and technological pillar.
• Challenges / Concerns
  • India’s limited domestic processing capacity for rare earths.
  • Regulatory and ethical gaps in AI governance.
  • Coordination challenges between government and private sector.
  • Geopolitical pushback from countries dominating mineral supply chains.

Way Forward

• Fast-track domestic exploration and processing under National Mineral Policy.
• Align AI Dialogue outcomes with Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) model.
• Strengthen India–Japan industrial collaboration in semiconductors and EVs.
• Institutionalise Quad-wide cooperation on critical minerals.
• Invest in skill development and R&D for AI and deep-tech sectors.

MULTILATERALISM ALA CARTE, THE WASHINGTON WAY

Context of the News

• US announced large-scale withdrawal/disengagement from multilateral institutions, including several UN-system bodies.
• Formalisation of “multilateralism à la carte”: selective, interest-based participation.
• Continuity with earlier exits/re-entries, making commitments reversible political choices.
• Linked to US National Security Strategy narrowing geographic and institutional responsibilities.

Core Features of the US Approach

• Exit: Withdrawal from institutions/treaties imposing constraints.
• Obstruction: Staying inside institutions but blocking outcomes (e.g., dispute settlement).
• Bypass: Preference for minilateral/coalition- based arrangements over universal forums.
• Conditionality: Engagement only when aligned with sovereignty and national interest.

Key Implications for Global Governance

• Weakening of rules-based multilateral order.
• Reduced predictability, trust, and reciprocity among states.
• Fragmentation of standards; rise of parallel regimes.
• Greater uncertainty for long-term collective action (climate, health, trade).

Impact on International Institutions

• Erosion of legitimacy when principal architect disengages.
• Operational paralysis in consensus-based bodies.
• Shift from universalism to selective participation.
• Increased dependence of smaller states on powerful patrons.

Implications for India

• Weakening of enforceable trade rules and dispute resolution.
• Uncertainty in climate finance and technology standards.
• Opportunity for leadership, but higher coordination costs.
• Need to balance minilateral gains with universal norm protection.

Static Linkages

• UN system: role in collective security and cooperation (NCERT Polity).
• WTO: rules-based trade and dispute settlement (Indian Economy).
• Climate regimes: framework-based governance (NCERT Environment).
• Post-WWII order: institutions converting power into legitimacy (World History/IR).

Way Forward

• Defend universality in critical areas (climate, health, trade).
• Lead reform-oriented coalitions within multilateral forums.
• Use minilateralism as a complement, not substitute.
• Strengthen Global South coordination and norm-setting capacity.