Table of Contents
Today’s brief reads three articles. Chintamani Mahapatra in Firstpost argues that deterrence in the Indo-Pacific is failing on credibility and not on capability. Rahul Bajaj in the Deccan Herald reads priority listing for disabled litigants as a small change with a large argument behind it. Swapnil Tripathi in Bar and Bench shows how a pending election petition can keep a seat empty for the life of the House.
Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific is failing on credibility and not on capability.
Chintamani Mahapatra writes that the Indo-Pacific looks calm beside Europe and West Asia. He argues that the calm is thin. The wars in Ukraine and Iran have damaged the one thing the peace of the region rests on. That is the belief that American security promises will be honoured. The question he puts is whether China will do in the region what Russia has done to Ukraine.
The record
- China tested a submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missile in the Pacific. The United States was given only a few hours of notice, and the information was incomplete.
- Chinese assertion of sovereignty in the South China Sea has almost become a new normal.
- China has declared Taiwan the red line. Trump maintained a studied silence on it.
- The doubt sits among the allies and partners of the United States and not among its rivals. Japan and Seoul doubt extended deterrence. ASEAN doubts the American position on the South China Sea. Taipei doubts it after the remark by Trump on troops.
The argument
Two wars fought nowhere near Asia have done their real damage inside Asia. They have damaged the belief that the United States will actually turn up. Capability without credibility deters nobody. Carry that distinction into answers on balance of power and deterrence, where the usual measure is force and not belief.
The easiest route to dominance for China is not to fight a war. It is to wait until the region stops believing the American promise. That is the argument to set beside the syllabus head on American hegemony.
“On the surface, the Indo-Pacific region seems peaceful and stable compared to what is happening in Europe and West Asia. But the potential for conflict is clearly simmering underneath.”
Firstpost
Priority listing gives a disabled litigant no new right, only an earlier date.
Rahul Bajaj writes that Indian courts have begun to list cases filed by persons with disabilities on priority. He does not claim that this creates a new right. It only moves the file up the queue. His argument is that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is barely enforced, so the courtroom is the single place where a disabled person can get an order that binds someone. Once that is true, the date of hearing decides how much the right is worth.
The record
- The National Judicial Data Grid records 5,04,12,584 cases pending before Indian courts. In the last month alone 17,89,241 fresh cases were instituted.
- India has roughly 22 judges per million people. The long recommended benchmark is 50 per million.
- The 2011 Census counted 2.68 crore persons with disabilities in India. The author records that the figure is almost universally regarded as a gross undercount.
- By a circular in December 2025 the Supreme Court created a category in its miscellaneous-day cause list for cases relating to specially abled persons. New heads were made at the same time for senior citizens, persons below the poverty line and legal aid matters. Advocates and parties must flag such cases at the filing stage with documentary proof, so the Registry can prioritise them.
- The Delhi High Court began to prioritise such cases from April 2024, and its practice is the most settled of the lot.
- The High Court of Meghalaya, with effect from 1 July 2026, identifies cases involving persons with disabilities as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for priority listing. Even pending matters can be moved up on production of a disability certificate.
- The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has started collecting particulars of matters in which a disabled person is a litigant, so that hearing and disposal can be quicker.
- Only one case, at last count, appears to have been properly categorised and prioritised under the new head in the Supreme Court.
- The disability commissions at the Centre and in the states carry only recommendatory power and are short of staff. They cannot compel compliance even when they find a violation.
The argument
The reform is small and the argument for it is large. Government portals and private services stay out of reach of a screen reader. Public buildings are sanctioned without any check for accessibility. Reasonable accommodation, the duty to make individual adjustments so a disabled person can take part on equal terms, is routinely denied. Where the executive fails to deliver a right, the court order is the only remedy that binds.
So delay stops being an administrative irritant and becomes the denial itself. A right you can realise only after ten years is not much of a right. That is the line to carry into answers on the Supreme Court and on the working of fundamental rights, where the fault lies in enforcement and not in the text.
“For such a large population, an indefinite delay is not a minor inconvenience. It is a quiet denial of justice.”
Rahul Bajaj
A pending election petition can keep a seat empty for the life of the House.
Swapnil Tripathi sets out a clash between two things the law wants at once. Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 wants a vacant seat filled within six months. Section 84 lets a petitioner ask for a declaration that he, or another candidate, was duly elected. The Supreme Court settled the clash in favour of the mandate. Where an election petition is pending, the seat is not available for a bye-election. The catch is that election petitions are not decided quickly, and the seat then stays empty.
The record
- The Election Commission announced bye-elections in three Assembly constituencies last week. Reports indicate fourteen vacant seats in State Assemblies and six in Parliament for which bye-elections have not been announced.
- Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires the Election Commission to conduct a bye-election within six months of a seat falling vacant.
- The Act carves out two exceptions. The first is where the remainder of the term is less than one year. The second is where the Election Commission, in consultation with the Union Government, certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within the prescribed period.
- In Election Commission of India v. Telangana Rashtra Samiti (2010) the Supreme Court recognised a third exception. Where an election petition challenging the previous election is pending, the seat cannot be treated as available for a bye-election, and the Election Commission must await the outcome. The reading leaves the Commission with no discretion.
- The Court reconciled Section 151A with Section 84 by dividing vacancies in two. Those where a petition is pending wait. Those where no petition has been filed are filled on the statutory timeline.
- A co-ordinate bench took a different view in Nitin Bandopant Salagre v. State Election Commission (2019). It held that the mere filing of an election petition does not put an embargo on the right of the State Election Commission to fill a casual vacancy. That case arose under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
- The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that the trial of an election petition should be completed expeditiously, possibly within six months of its presentation. In practice that timeline is rarely complied with.
- The Madras High Court recently criticised the Supreme Court for keeping an election petition pending for over six years. By the time the appeal was decided, the Assembly had completed its term and two further elections had been conducted.
- In 2024 the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 151A would need interpretation. The matter has remained pending since, with no substantive hearing on the issue.
The argument
Two goods here point in opposite directions. One is the true mandate of the last election. The other is that every constituency should have a member. Telangana Rashtra Samiti chose the first, and it did so on an assumption. The assumption is that election petitions will ordinarily be decided within a reasonable period.
That assumption fails. A rule built to protect the voter then leaves fourteen Assembly seats and six parliamentary seats with no member at all. Judicial delay is not a problem for the litigant alone. It becomes a problem of representation, and the citizens of those constituencies lose their voice in debates, in committees and in votes.
“In such cases, judicial delay leaves the constituency without representation, depriving citizens of representation in legislative debates, committee proceedings, votes on important public issues, and spending on constituencies.”
Swapnil Tripathi
Where this belongs in your syllabus
Open the note and read the full topic.
The questions this feeds
Questions from earlier years that today’s reading speaks to. Where the answer is written, the red link opens it. The full set is in the PYQ Vault.
- PSIR Paper II · 2025 · 15mIndia maintains strong ties with countries that will assure a free and open Indo-Pacific and guarantee greater connectivity with rest of the world. Analyze.Answer
- PSIR Paper II · 2025 · 10mFor India, a multipolar world order would also mean a multipolar Asia. Comment.Answer
- GS-2 · 2025Discuss the 'corrupt practices' for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute 'undue influence' and consequently a corrupt practice.
- GS-2 · 2024Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to 'one nation – one election' principle.
- GS-2 · 2024Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world's most powerful judiciary?
- GS-2 · 2023Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India.