The article delves into the complexities surrounding freedom of expression (FoE) within the framework of Indian democracy, highlighting the challenges posed by both the state's actions and societal reactions. It questions the effectiveness of the liberal norm of FoE amidst various restrictions and misappropriations.

Summary:

The piece opens with a juxtaposition of free speech as a cornerstone of liberalism against the continuous challenges it faces in practice. It provides an analysis of conflicting incidents involving Indian citizens expressing their opinions on military decisions, underscoring the disparities in state responses to different forms of speech. One individual faced arrest and scrutiny, while another evoked similar controversial sentiments without consequence, illustrating the frailty of FoE in India.

Key points of focus include:

• Complications in FoE: India’s system exhibits significant contradictions in its commitment to freedom of expression, juxtaposed with a reality where dissenting voices are often suppressed.

• Three Myths of FoE:

  1. State as Guarantor: There is a common perception that the state is a custodian of FoE, likely stemming from its constitutional authority. However, history shows an overwhelming trend of legal mechanisms designed to limit rather than protect free speech, particularly exemplified by actions following the First Amendment. Currently, the justifications for limiting speech—like national interest, defamation, and community enmity—highlight the state’s role in silencing dissent.

  2. Weak Safeguards: Existing legislation that supports FoE lacks robustness, often empowering state authorities to more easily restrict expression. Political parties, when in opposition, may advocate for FoE, but often justify restrictions upon assuming power, resulting in growing legislative inconsistency and confusion around permissible speech.

  3. Misappropriation of the Norm: An emerging distortion within the notion of FoE argues that even hate speech should be protected under free speech. This calls into question what constitutes legitimate expression versus harmful rhetoric, complicating public perception and legal definitions surrounding speech.

• Legal and Societal Debate: The author emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of whether FoE is intrinsic to democracy or merely an elitist privilege. The current trend often prioritizes electoral processes over substantive democratic values like constructive public discourse. The intertwining of liberal and democratic principles is essential for a vibrant political environment, suggesting that arrests and punitive measures against expressions of dissent overlook their fundamental connection to democracy.

• Conclusion: The article posits that discussions about FoE should transcend legal jargon and embrace a more democratic dialogue. Strengthening the relationship between liberalism and democracy is vital for preserving the essence of freedom of expression.

Important Sentences in Bullet Points:

• Free speech is central to the liberal norm, yet states compromise this principle.
• There is a stark disparity in how the state responds to different expressions of free speech.
• Historical patterns show a trend of legal restrictions on free speech outweighing protections.
• Three myths hinder the progress of FoE in India: reliance on the state, weak legislative safeguards, and misappropriation of the free speech concept.
• Current legal frameworks and societal perceptions muddle the understanding of legitimate speech versus hate speech.
• A genuine democracy requires recognizing the essential relationship between liberal norms and free speech.
• The discourse surrounding FoE should focus on its democratic implications rather than solely legal interpretations.

The Supreme Court of India recently declared two notifications by the Union Environment Ministry illegal, undermining the established requirement for industrial units to obtain prior governmental permission for environmental clearances before setting up or altering operations. This decision reaffirms the importance of the process mandated by the 2006 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, which was allegedly compromised by the Ministry's initiatives in 2017 and 2021.

Summary

The Ministry's actions began with a 2017 notification that provided a six-month opportunity for industries lacking the necessary environmental clearances to rectify their status. This was followed by a 2021 standard operating procedure that allowed industries in violation of laws to regularize their operations, although at a significant financial penalty. Both measures were issued via executive orders without amending the Environment Protection Act, raising concerns over their legitimacy.

The Ministry justified this approach with three main arguments:

1. Regularization efforts had previously been initiated by the UPA government but had been annulled by judicial interventions without condemning the projects as irredeemably harmful.
2. The potential disruption of demolishing operational plants—which could worsen pollution and affect employment—was deemed a reason to pursue regularization.
3. The introduction of penalties for operating without authorization was viewed as a corrective mechanism.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the essential need for prior environmental clearance, while clarifying that industries that had already been regularized under the previous notifications would remain unaffected by the ruling. The Court’s decision highlights the failures of local environmental boards to enforce compliance with the law, suggesting that the penalties imposed by the regularization procedures could be ineffective.

The Supreme Court's ruling is significant as it aims to prevent future governments from enabling such violations under the guise of economic benefits, while also calling for increased enforcement of environmental regulations.

Important Points:

• The Supreme Court of India declared two Union Environment Ministry notifications illegal for allowing industries to operate without prior environmental clearance.
• The principle of "prior" approval is central to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006.
• In March 2017, a notification offered a six-month window for industries lacking clearances to apply for regularization.
• A 2021 standard operating procedure allowed for the regularization of previously non-compliant projects, imposing significant fines but lacking legislative backing.
• The Ministry's rationale included previously attempted regularization efforts and concerns about economic disruption due to plant demolitions.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of prior clearance and specified that companies regularized under the disputed notifications would not be affected by the ruling.
• The ruling exposes the shortcomings of regional environmental boards in law enforcement.
• The judgment seeks to eliminate future government tactics that prioritize economic benefits over adherence to environmental laws, necessitating improved on-ground enforcement.

The article discusses India’s recent military operation, Operation Sindoor (OS), in the context of national interest, regional stability, and international relations. It highlights varying perceptions of the operation’s success, critiques of government communication, and the implications of actions taken by both India and Pakistan. Here’s a summary of the key points:

• Definition of National Interest: The concept of national interest is complex, raising questions about who defines it and how it is pursued. This assessment focuses on defending the Modi government against criticisms while exploring the implications of OS.

• Criticism of Government Actions: The leadership and armed forces should not be blamed for not pursuing the operation to an extreme "logical conclusion," as extending military engagement between nuclear powers would be ill-advised. Instead, a ceasefire should be welcomed to avoid escalation.

• Consequences of a Divided Pakistan: There is a perception among some that India should aim to weaken Pakistan significantly, but the article argues for a stable, democratic Pakistan as being in India's true national interest. A politically unstable Pakistan could lead to further regional turmoil.

• Terrorism and Kashmir: Military action, such as OS, was deemed a legitimate response to terrorism from Pakistan, although it doesn't resolve the underlying issues related to the Kashmir conflict. Democratic engagement with the Kashmiri people must accompany any military response.

• Assessment of OS: A comprehensive evaluation of OS includes three key questions: its effectiveness in deterring terrorism, its ability to unify the country internally, and its impact on India’s global standing. The author suggests that OS may have fallen short in all these areas.

• Government Claims: Prime Minister Modi's statements post-operation claim that Punjab has made assurances against future terrorist activities, but the lack of concrete details raises doubts about the actual deterrence achieved.

• Domestic Response: Post-Pahalgam massacre, there was a nationwide, unified outrage against terrorism, demonstrating an opportunity for the government to rally national resolve. However, minority communities and dissenters faced intense backlash.

• International Standing: India's position on the global stage has been undermined, with no major power backing India's stance against Pakistan regarding terrorism or its positions on international financial support to Pakistan.

• Failure of Coercive Diplomacy: The article critiques the lack of international support for India’s attempts to link the Indus Waters Treaty to national security concerns, indicating that domestic posturing might be overshadowing more strategic diplomatic efforts.

• US Involvement: The ceasefire announcement was first communicated through the US, leading to perceptions that America had a significant role in mediating between India and Pakistan, contrary to the Indian government's official stance. This raises concerns about India's ability to manage its own foreign relations independently.

• Final Thoughts: The author concludes that the manner in which the ceasefire was negotiated and communicated indicates a setback for India's national interest, suggesting that the ruling party's aggressive nationalist rhetoric does not align with the realities of international diplomacy.

Key Points:

• National interest in this context is debated and not easily defined.
• Criticism of the government must be balanced with an understanding of the operational context.
• A stable Pakistan is necessary for regional peace, as a disintegrated Pakistan would pose a greater risk.
• Military operations should go hand-in-hand with addressing underlying political grievances in Kashmir.
• Lack of international support post-Operation Sindoor reflects poorly on diplomatic efforts.
• The US's role in announcing the ceasefire complicates perceptions of India's sovereignty over its foreign policy.
• Internal national unity, while momentarily bolstered by grief over attacks, faces challenges from divisive political actions.

On Tuesday, Chief Minister Lalduhoma announced that Mizoram has achieved the status of a "fully literate state," marking a significant milestone in the region's educational journey. This declaration was made during an event in Aizawl that was also attended by Union Minister of State for Education, Jayant Chaudhary. The Chief Minister emphasized the historic nature of this achievement, highlighting it as not just an end to a literacy campaign but the beginning of a new era characterized by opportunity, empowerment, and inclusion.

Key highlights of Mizoram's literacy achievement include:

• Mizoram previously recorded a literacy rate of 91.3% in the 2011 census, which positioned it as the third-highest in India.
• A recent door-to-door survey conducted in August-September 2023 found 3,026 individuals aged 15 and above who were non-literate.
• Through engagement efforts involving 1,692 of these individuals in educational activities, the state successfully raised its literacy rate to 98.2%.
• This surpasses the Ministry of Education’s threshold of 95% required for a state to be classified as having "full literacy."

In support of this mission, the State Centre for Literacy (SCL) was established under the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). The SCL developed Mizo language learning materials titled "Vartian", as well as an English version tailored for learners in Lawngtlai district. Additional educational resources, such as "Romei" for learners and "Margdarshika" for volunteer teachers, were also created to aid in this initiative. Furthermore, 292 Volunteer Teachers were recruited by District Project Offices to facilitate regular classes in various settings, including schools, community centers, YMA libraries, and even students’ homes when necessary.

The ULLAS (Understanding Lifelong Learning for All in Society) program, aimed at individuals over 15 who did not have access to formal schooling, is a centrally sponsored initiative set to run from 2022 to 2027, further supporting Mizoram’s literacy goals.

In summary, the successful attainment of full literacy in Mizoram is a commendable achievement that reflects the state's commitment to education and inclusive growth, setting a model for other regions to follow.

Important Points:

• Chief Minister Lalduhoma declared Mizoram a "fully literate state."
• The announcement was made in Aizawl during an event with Union Minister Jayant Chaudhary.
• Mizoram's literacy rate was previously 91.3% per the 2011 census.
• A recent survey identified 3,026 non-literate individuals aged 15 and above.
• Engaging 1,692 individuals in learning activities helped achieve a 98.2% literacy rate.
• The state surpassed the 95% threshold for "full literacy" as per the Ministry of Education.
• The State Centre for Literacy (SCL) was set up to create educational resources and support this initiative.
• Additional resources for learners and volunteer teachers were developed.
• 292 Volunteer Teachers were recruited to facilitate learning in various settings.
• The ULLAS program targets individuals aged over 15 who could not attend school, aiming to further support lifelong education.

British-Indian academic Nitasha Kaul has had her Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status revoked by the Indian government, citing her involvement in anti-India activities. The removal of her OCI status raises significant questions about the treatment of diaspora communities, the implications of OCI regulations, and the impact of recent policy changes on those holding OCI cards.

Summary:

• Nitasha Kaul's OCI Status Revocation: Kaul announced that her OCI status was canceled due to accusations of participating in "anti-India activities" through her writings and speeches. She received a letter from the Indian government stating that she regularly targets India and its institutions.

• What is OCI?: The OCI scheme, introduced in 2005, allows Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) who were citizens of India on or after January 26, 1950, to register for this status. An OCI typically provides lifetime multi-purpose visas, exemption from local police registration, and flexibility for travel to India.

• Statistics on OCI Holders: As of 2023, there are over 4.5 million OCI card holders across 129 countries, with the largest group in the USA, followed by the UK, Australia, and Canada.

• Recent OCI Regulations: In March 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs amended OCI rules, instituting several restrictions:

  • OCI holders must seek permission to visit "protected areas" in India.
  • New requirements include obtaining special permits for research, missionary work, journalism, or any activities in identified "protected," "restricted," or "prohibited" areas.
  • OCIs are treated as foreign nationals regarding all economic, financial, and educational matters, reversing the previous status where they were equated to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

• Eligibility for OCI: Certain individuals, including those with Pakistani or Bangladeshi ancestry, are ineligible for OCI status. However, spouses of Indian citizens or OCI holders who meet specific criteria can apply.

• Limitations of OCI Holders: OCI holders do not have the same rights as citizens; they cannot vote, serve in legislative bodies, hold constitutional posts like President or Judge, or typically take government employment.

Important Points:

• Kaul's cancellation of OCI status triggers concerns about the treatment of critical voices in the Indian diaspora.
• OCI scheme provides significant travel and residency benefits to persons of Indian origin, yet the revocation illustrates the potential vulnerabilities faced by critics of the Indian government.
• The recent amendments to OCI regulations signal a tightening of the ability of OCI holders to engage in various activities within India, presenting challenges for those who wish to work or research there.
• The status of OCI card holders is now aligned with that of foreign nationals, potentially limiting their economic and educational rights.
• Restrictions apply to eligibility for OCI based on familial ties to certain countries, highlighting geopolitical tensions influencing citizenship policies.

This development and the context of OCI regulations are crucial in understanding the dynamics between the Indian government and its diaspora, particularly in light of growing nationalism and scrutiny of dissenting voices.

The article discusses the growing politicization of higher education in the United States, where conservative state governments have enacted measures perceived to threaten academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the diversity of thought within universities. This shift has notable implications for other nations like India, which is also undergoing reforms in its higher education system.

Summary:

• Political Climate in U.S. Education:

  • Conservative-led states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have passed laws limiting the teaching of subjects related to race, gender, and sexuality, under the guise of protecting children from political indoctrination.
  • Initiatives include banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) in public education, dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, and imposing tighter control over course content.

• Concerns Among Educators:

  • Many educators view these regulations as direct attacks on their freedoms to teach and conduct research, fearing the loss of critical thought and academic integrity.
  • Efforts to restrict or eliminate tenure systems, which are vital for preserving academic freedom, have emerged as part of this broader trend.

• Understanding Critical Race Theory (CRT):

  • CRT explains how racism is systemic within institutions and legal frameworks, emphasizing that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality.
  • It encourages discussions on various social issues like affirmative action, housing laws, education inequality, and police reform.

• Political Reactions:

  • Critics argue that universities have become echo chambers for liberal ideology, claiming that removing certain content will lead to a more balanced education.
  • Public figures, including Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, have voiced opposition to elite universities, labeling them as centers of radical left indoctrination.

• Harvard's Recent Controversy:

  • Following remarks by student groups related to the Hamas-Israel conflict, the U.S. Department of Education launched a civil rights inquiry into Harvard, interpreted by many as politically motivated pressure against the institution.

• Lessons for India's Higher Education:

  • India is experiencing reforms via the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, focusing on autonomy and interdisciplinary learning.
  • Observations from the U.S. highlight the fragility of academic freedom, urging Indian stakeholders to protect it from political interference.

• Risks of Politicization:

  • An educational environment swayed by ideological narratives threatens to transform schools from platforms of inquiry into vehicles for indoctrination.
  • The suppression of diverse worldviews and critical thinking may lead to a decline in research quality and the global standing of Indian universities.

• Call to Action:

  • Stakeholders in Indian higher education must prioritize institutional oversight to protect academic freedom, encourage research independence, and foster environments for critical discourse.
  • Students must actively engage in discussions concerning academic freedom to safeguard their educational institutions.

• The Importance of Academic Freedom:

  • A vibrant education system must support diversity in thought and discussion, acting as a guardian of the nation’s civilizational values and democratic ideals rather than mere echo chambers.

In conclusion, the politicization of higher education in the U.S. serves as a cautionary tale for other nations, including India, stressing the need for vigilance to maintain academic integrity and protect meaningful education from ideological control.

Important Sentences:

• "American colleges have recently turned into arenas for ideological conflict."
• "Laws that limit the teaching of subjects like race, gender, and sexuality have been passed in conservative-led states."
• "Many educators perceive this management as an open attack on their freedom to teach and conduct research."
• "Critical Race Theory explains how racism is ingrained in institutions, legal systems, and public policy."
• "Critics argue that liberal ideology has taken over universities, creating echo chambers."
• "The situation at Harvard reflects deeper political motivations in the oversight of educational institutions."
• "India’s reforms serve as a reminder that academic autonomy can be easily compromised."
• "Politicization risks transforming education from inquiry to indoctrination."
• "Stakeholders need to ensure that academic freedom is preserved to foster critical discourse and diverse viewpoints."

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has introduced a voluntary Code of Ethics for its members to safeguard principles of responsible digital publishing while preserving editorial independence. The guidelines reflect the commitment of digital news publishers to maintain high standards of ethical journalism amidst challenges that might restrict the dissemination of news.

Key Points of the Code of Ethics:

• Legal Compliance: Digital news websites must comply with the laws governing media in India, including the Constitution and relevant acts concerning information technology.

• Journalistic Standards: Members are expected to uphold accepted journalistic ethics, ensuring accuracy, transparency, and fairness in all reporting. This includes mandatory verification before publication to avoid misinformation and defamation.

• Right of Reply: News articles must allow for respondents to share their comments, and updates should be incorporated when new developments arise.

• Correction Protocol: If inaccuracies are identified, news articles must be edited or deleted upon receiving valid corrections from concerned parties.

• Intellectual Property Rights: Publishers must respect copyrights and obtain permission before using third-party materials. Violations of intellectual property rights should lead to prompt rectifications upon receiving requests.

• Reporting Sensitivity: Care should be taken when delving into crime-related matters to preserve the presumption of innocence and avoid sensationalism. Sensitive reporting on topics such as sexual harassment, child abuse, and communal conflicts is especially emphasized.

• Legal Safeguards: The Code indicates adherence to applicable laws under the Information Technology Act related to the dissemination of inappropriate or offensive content.

• Grievance Redressal: Publishers should implement grievance redressal mechanisms aligned with the Information Technology Act, ensuring a process for handling complaints is visible and efficient.

• Education and Training: The Code emphasizes the need for ongoing training for editorial staff about laws relevant to journalism, focusing on issues like defamation, reporting on minors, and maintaining the privacy of victims in sensitive cases.

• Sensitive Reporting Standards: Guidelines highlight the need to avoid publishing identifiable information about minors and victims of certain crimes, stressing a careful approach to reporting matters of communal discontent and judicial affairs.

Overall, the DNPA’s Code of Ethics aims to solidify the standards of journalism and reinforce the integrity of digital news publishing while ensuring that fundamental rights and freedoms are respected within the framework of Indian law.

Important Sentences:

• The DNPA has introduced a voluntary Code of Ethics reflecting a commitment to responsible digital publishing while ensuring editorial independence.
• Digital news websites must adhere to Indian laws and the Constitution, including over 30 applicable media laws.
• Members are to uphold journalistic ethics by ensuring accuracy, transparency, and fairness in reporting, with mandatory pre-publication verification.
• Articles must include a "Right of Reply" for individuals or parties mentioned in reports, allowing for updates based on new developments.
• Corrections to inaccuracies must be made swiftly, including the potential deletion of entire articles if warranted.
• Intellectual Property Rights must be respected, requiring proper permission before using third-party materials.
• Special sensitivity is urged when reporting on crimes or incidents involving minors, sexual harassment, or communal disputes.
• A grievance redressal mechanism must be in place for addressing complaints promptly within specified time frames.
• Ongoing training programs for editorial staff about relevant journalism laws are essential for maintaining ethical reporting standards.

In a troubling incident, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a political science professor at Ashoka University, was arrested by the Haryana Police due to two FIRs lodged against him related to his social media commentary on Operation Sindoor. His posts analyzed India's military operations against non-state terror actors within Pakistan, highlighting the challenges faced by the Indian government in addressing terrorism. The second post criticized calls for war among netizens and invoked principles of restraint from both Hindu and Islamic texts.

Key details from the incident include:

• Arrest Basis: Professor Mahmudabad's arrest was prompted by complaints from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) affiliates, which claimed his posts were derogatory to women in uniform and suggested malicious intent towards the government.
• Content of Posts: His messages called for an inclusive understanding of India's challenges and addressed the complexities of confronting terrorism, underlining that the military’s actions were a response to a systemic issue supported by Pakistan’s military.
• Allegations of Sedition: The charges against him, which involve threats to national sovereignty and promoting enmity, echo a broader pattern where sedition laws are deployed against dissenting voices, particularly in BJP-ruled states. The nature of these allegations raises concerns about the deterioration of academic freedom and freedom of expression in India.
• Legal Proceedings: The Supreme Court of India is set to hear Mahmudabad's case swiftly, which signifies a potential judicial check on misuse of state power regarding free speech. There is a critical need for the court to uphold constitutional rights, particularly amidst rising authoritarian trends in handling dissent.
• Wider Context: This situation is symptomatic of a concerning trend within India, where critical voices are increasingly silenced through legal intimidation and the misuse of sedition charges, adversely affecting the academic landscape and freedom of expression.

In summary, Professor Mahmudabad's arrest raises significant issues around freedom of speech, the proper use of authority by law enforcement, the implications of sedition laws on academic and public discourse, and the prevailing political climate regarding dissent in India. The Supreme Court's response will be pivotal in addressing these issues and reinforcing the protections afforded to expression and critique in a democratic society.

The article discusses the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India, which occurred on April 22, 2025. It emphasizes the importance of bipartisan cooperation in addressing national security, particularly in the face of terrorism. The author, Shashi Tharoor, reflects on the historical context of political responses to terrorism in India, arguing that political parties often exploit crises for electoral gain rather than uniting for a common cause.

Key Points:

• Recent Attack Impact: The Pahalgam terrorist attack highlights the precarious nature of peace in a historically troubled region. India mourns the loss of innocent lives, calling for a concerted response against terrorism.

• Bipartisan Cooperation Necessity: The article calls for unity across political lines to create a coherent and effective national security strategy, moving beyond the pattern of political exploitation of tragedies.

• Historical Context of Political Division: In the wake of past attacks, such as the Pulwama incident in 2019, political narratives often shifted towards partisan campaigning, undermining the development of long-term defense strategies.

• Examples of Successful Bipartisanship: The article cites instances like the Kargil War and the surgical strikes post-Uri attack, where political leaders transcended party differences to support national security measures.

• International Comparisons: Global examples illustrate that when nations face security threats, political parties typically unite. For instance, the bipartisan response to the September 11 attacks in the U.S. and the swift legislative actions following the Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand exemplify this principle.

• Growing Polarization in Indian Politics: Tharoor notes a deterioration in mutual respect between ruling and opposing parties, resulting in a toxic political atmosphere that hampers effective dialogue on national security.

• Need for Clarity in National Security Discourse: The author advocates for a clear and united stance against terrorism, arguing that divisive rhetoric only strengthens adversaries and impairs collective responses.

• Call for Political Maturity: India must develop a national security doctrine that remains above electoral cycles, ensuring consistency in counter-terrorism policies irrespective of party politics.

• Conclusion: Emphasizing statesmanship over populism, Tharoor urges lawmakers to recognize their duty towards collective national security, advocating for action that unites rather than divides citizens. The future of India's stability and resilience hinges on this unified approach.

In summary, the article conveys a strong message regarding the necessity of bipartisanship in national security, particularly in light of attacks such as the one in Pahalgam. The call for collective responsibility aims to transcend current political divides and establish a framework that prioritizes India's security interests above partisan agendas.

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar has expressed strong criticism regarding an in-house probe conducted by a panel of judges into allegations of unaccounted cash found at Justice Yashwant Varma's residence during a fire incident in March. Dhankhar questioned the legitimacy and effectiveness of this inquiry, stressing it lacks constitutional basis and calling for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) to further probe the matter. He emphasized the public's demand for transparency and accountability regarding the origins and implications of the alleged cash haul.

Key points from the article include:

• Call for Accountability: Dhankhar argues for a thorough and scientifically rigorous investigation into allegations of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma's residence, stating that the public deserves clarity on the matter.
• Demand for FIR: He highlighted that no FIR has been registered in the case, expressing urgency for law enforcement to investigate the source and purpose of the cash, and to examine its potential effect on the judicial system.
• Concerns Over Judicial Impunity: Dhankhar criticized the 1991 K Veeraswami judgment which protects judges from prosecution without prior sanction, suggesting that it creates a "scaffolding of impunity" around the judiciary.
• In-house Probe's Limitations: He questioned the constitutional integrity of the investigative panel set up by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, suggesting that its findings may not result in meaningful consequences.
• Public Trust in Judiciary: Dhankhar noted that the incident has agitated millions and undermined confidence in the judicial system, emphasizing the need for accountability to restore public faith.
• Judiciary's Role in Democracy: He articulated that a robust independent judiciary is essential for democracy and that institutional accountability must be prioritized to prevent eroding public trust.
• Importance of Timely Investigations: Dhankhar expressed concern over the delay in addressing the incident, arguing that transparency and expediency are crucial for upholding the rule of law.

Overall, Dhankhar's statements reflect a growing impatience among the public and lawmakers for transparency in judicial matters and a pressing need to establish accountability in high-stakes incidents involving the judiciary.