The Hindu Gist - 1st October, 2026
1 . Bitter Pills: Drug Pricing and Hospital Margins
The Supreme Court has questioned the disparity between the Price to Retailer (PTR) and Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of certain drugs, with the gap reaching up to 1,000% in some cases. The concern is that such pricing practices can create incentives for hospitals to stock medicines offering higher margins, ultimately increasing the burden on patients.
PTR–MRP Gap and Its Consequences
- Huge pricing gap: Some drugs are not available over the counter, allowing hospitals to purchase medicines at lower prices while patients are charged the much higher MRP.
- Hospital incentives: Manufacturers may deliberately specify inflated MRPs so that hospitals can retain a larger difference between purchase price and selling price, creating an incentive to stock particular brands.
- Weak price competition: Patients purchasing medicines through hospital pharmacies often cannot compare prices or switch to cheaper alternatives, allowing hospitals to maintain higher margins.
- Impact on patients: The practice is particularly burdensome for patients requiring long-term treatment for cancer and chronic conditions, as high medicine costs can lead to reduced adherence and delayed treatment.
- Unequal impact: Smaller hospitals with lower revenues may be disadvantaged because they cannot command the same financial margins as larger hospitals.
Regulatory Gap and the Need for Price Rationalisation
- 2013 Drug (Prices Control) Order: The framework allows the NPPA to determine the ceiling price of scheduled medicines using the average market price, with a 16% retailer margin.
- MRP–ceiling disconnect: Even when a ceiling price exists, manufacturers can sell below it while printing an MRP substantially above the actual selling price, allowing a large PTR–MRP spread.
- Illustration: A medicine costing about ₹66 could have a market price of ₹116 and a ceiling price of ₹160, yet carry an MRP of ₹500, creating a large margin.
- Cancer medicines: In 2019, the Government capped the trade margin at up to 30% for 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines on a pilot basis.
- Supreme Court’s suggestion: A fixed percentage mark-up across drugs could replace the present structure, ensuring that margins do not rise disproportionately with the drug’s price.
2. Satisfaction with Police Remains Low Among Cybercrime Victims
India’s rapid digital transformation has been accompanied by a rise in cybercrime, making effective police response increasingly important. As per the findings of State of Policing in India Report 2026, jointly conducted by Lokniti-CSDS and Common Cause although cybercrime reporting mechanisms have expanded, the experience of victims remains poor: 63% remain dissatisfied with police handling, with satisfaction falling further during investigation.
Reporting Mechanisms Have Expanded, but Effective Policing Remains the Gap
- Growing institutional response: Government efforts have expanded through cyber helplines, the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and specialised cyber police stations across States.
- Reporting–action gap: Despite easier access to reporting mechanisms, nearly two in three cybercrime victims (63%) remain dissatisfied with police handling; 42% are somewhat dissatisfied and 21% very dissatisfied, while only 37% are satisfied.
- First contact vs follow-up: Victims report comparatively higher satisfaction at the first point of contact, but satisfaction steadily erodes as the case moves towards investigation and follow-up.
- Institutional capacity: The findings suggest that improvements in reporting infrastructure have not been matched by corresponding improvements in investigation and case management, creating a gap between complaint registration and effective police action.
- Long waiting times: For victims who visited police stations, only 28% were attended to within an hour.
- Repeated visits: 31% reported visiting the police station once or twice, 34% three or four times, and 23% five times or more to pursue their complaints.
- Procedural burden: Cybercrime reporting therefore remains not merely a procedural challenge but also a time-consuming process, particularly when victims have to repeatedly visit police stations or follow up on complaints.
Gender and Rural Divide in Cybercrime Policing
- Women face greater difficulty: Women appear to have significantly poorer experiences than men in dealing with police.
- Very dissatisfied: While the level of somewhat dissatisfaction is identical at 42% for both genders, 26% of women are very dissatisfied, compared with 18% of men.
- Gendered burden: The sharper dissatisfaction among women indicates that the problem is not simply about the availability of cybercrime mechanisms but also about how victims experience police interaction and follow-up.
- Rural disadvantage: Victims in rural areas reported nearly double the incidence of five or more visits to police stations compared with their urban counterparts.
- Access beyond technology: The rural–urban difference shows that expanding digital reporting alone cannot eliminate inequalities when victims still need to interact with physical police infrastructure, investigators and follow-up mechanisms.
From Digital Reporting to Effective Resolution
- Digital-first but not digital-only: The expansion of portals and helplines has improved the entry point into the policing system, but victims continue to face difficulties once complaints move into investigation.
- Complaint registration is not resolution: The central weakness lies in the gap between registering a cybercrime complaint and securing effective police action.
- Time matters: Waiting times, repeated visits and prolonged follow-up shape citizens’ overall experience of policing even when reporting mechanisms themselves are accessible.
- Better case management: The findings point towards the need for more efficient case management and better communication during investigation.
- Victim-centric policing: Cybercrime policing needs to become more responsive, transparent and capable of delivering timely justice, particularly for victims facing financial and psychological consequences.
The Indian Express Gist - 1st October, 2026
1 . ECI and Court Make It Harder, Not Easier, to Trust Independent Institutions
Special Intensive Revision and the Burden on Citizens
- SIR and electoral integrity: The Special Intensive Revision exercise may be justified in principle for ensuring the integrity of electoral rolls, but its conception and execution have raised concerns regarding the fairness and ease of the process.
- Opaque process: The use of opaque procedures and software protocols has raised substantive questions about electoral administration rather than merely procedural ones.
- Shifting the burden of proof: The process has been criticised for shifting the burden of proof onto citizens, making individuals establish their eligibility rather than ensuring that electoral administration facilitates their inclusion.
- Mass appeals against voters: The Election Commission filing appeals against around 16 lakh voters in West Bengal who had been found eligible for inclusion has intensified concerns about the manner in which electoral-roll revision is being conducted.
Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Accountability
- ECI’s constitutional responsibility: The Election Commission has the power and responsibility to ensure the integrity of electoral rolls, while its institutional independence is constitutionally protected.
- Supreme Court as accountability mechanism: Since removal of Election Commissioners involves a high constitutional threshold, judicial scrutiny becomes an important practical mechanism for checking the exercise of electoral authority.
- Safeguards versus institutional power: Judicial intervention should protect citizens through strong procedural and substantive safeguards without unnecessarily infringing upon the ECI’s constitutional powers.
- Casual treatment of voting rights: Remarks and decisions concerning excluded voters have raised concerns that the right to vote can be treated too casually, despite its centrality to democratic participation.
Constitutional Self-Awareness and Institutional Conduct
- Constitutional self-awareness: Constitutional bodies exercising significant public power require awareness that their authority exists to protect citizens from arbitrary power and disenfranchisement.
- Institutionalised impunity: The deeper concern is not merely the technical details of SIR but the emergence of a “culture of impunity” in which constitutional offices may exercise significant power without adequate institutional self-correction.
- Independence is not insulation: Institutional independence cannot be1come a shield against legitimate scrutiny. Constitutional autonomy must coexist with accountability and responsible exercise of power.
- Procedure and virtue: A formal appointment procedure by itself cannot guarantee the quality or conduct of constitutional functionaries; “procedure is no substitute for virtue” captures the distinction between institutional design and institutional behaviour.
Institutional Trust and the Disenfranchised Voter
- Trust in independent institutions: When constitutional institutions themselves become the subject of controversy, the resulting damage extends beyond one electoral process to public faith in independent institutions.
- Government versus constitutional authorities: The dynamic becomes more complex when criticism shifts from the government towards constitutional authorities, because institutional independence can itself become a shield for the government from direct scrutiny.
- Invisible disenfranchisement: While political parties and the media may mobilise around electoral controversies, many voters whose political rights are affected remain outside the zone of visibility.
- Political agency: Converting the experience of disenfranchised voters from a statistic into political agency remains difficult, thereby weakening the public pressure generated by the controversy.
- Restoring institutional credibility: Accountability, correction of procedural shortcomings and restoration of integrity in the electoral process are necessary to rebuild the citizen’s faith in constitutional institutions.
2. Pause SIR and Conduct an Audit of Voter Deletions
Public and Political Pressure on the Election Commission
- Growing public mobilisation: Dissatisfaction has taken the form of organised protests by activists, student groups and political parties, particularly in major urban centres. The protests reflect the widening public scrutiny of the functioning of the ECI.
- Opposition pressure: Opposition leaders have demanded the CEC’s resignation and, over allegations of bias favouring the ruling party, have also called for criminal proceedings.
- Parliamentary challenge: Opposition lawmakers are seeking to use parliamentary mechanisms to challenge the CEC’s position, including fresh notices for removal after earlier notices were declined by the presiding officers of both Houses.
- Exceptionally high removal threshold: Removal of the CEC is deliberately modelled on the impeachment procedure applicable to a Supreme Court judge. Under the 2023 law, while an Election Commissioner may resign by writing to the President, involuntary removal involves a parliamentary process requiring admission of a petition followed by a majority in both Houses, making removal extremely difficult without government backing.
Legal Challenges and Institutional Accountability
- Judicial challenges: Two separate challenges have reached the Supreme Court. One questions administrative and technological decisions of the CEC, including allegations that important policies and software modifications were made unilaterally without unanimous agreement of the three-member ECI.
- 2023 selection process: Another challenge concerns the constitutionality of the 2023 selection mechanism, which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection panel, resulting in an executive-dominated two-to-one balance.
- Immunity under Section 16: The 2023 legislation provides serving and former Election Commissioners immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for actions undertaken in discharge of official duties. The provision itself remains open to judicial scrutiny.
- Accountability versus immunity: If blanket immunity is found unconstitutional, the legal consequences for actions alleged to be manifestly mala fide could become significant. Thus, institutional independence and protection from harassment must be balanced against meaningful accountability.
Electoral Credibility and the SIR Controversy
- Political resistance: The ruling establishment has adopted a firm defence of both the CEC and SIR, signalling that protests, parliamentary disruptions and political pressure will not necessarily determine executive decisions or force resignations.
- Institutional credibility: Continued controversy surrounding the CEC risks undermining the perceived neutrality of the ECI, which is fundamental to the credibility of the electoral system.
- Decline in institutional reputation: The ECI was earlier regarded as a model electoral authority internationally, including through its engagement with the UN and emerging democracies. Concerns over electoral-roll deletions and election administration now raise questions about India’s reputation as the world’s largest democracy.
- SIR and voter deletions: The disputed SIR has become central to the controversy, particularly amid claims of extremely large-scale voter deletions and unusual changes in electoral-roll administration.
- Need for transparency: With elections approaching, the immediate requirements are to pause the disputed SIR, disclose the ECI’s decision-making record, and conduct an independent audit of voter deletions and software changes.
3. Rising Sea Level Threat to India’s Eroding Coastline
Sea-level rise is accelerating, creating growing risks for low-lying coastal regions and island nations. The UN’s first declaration on rising seas focuses on protecting threatened states and integrating sea-level projections into coastal planning.
Rising Seas and the Question of Statehood
- Accelerating sea-level rise: Global sea-level rise more than doubled from 1 mm/year in 1993–2002 to 4.7 mm/year in 2015–2024. In 2024, sea level rose by 6 mm, the highest annual increase recorded.
- Long-term consequences: Sea-level rise will continue for centuries even after achieving net zero. The concern is therefore not only immediate flooding but the long-term habitability of coastal and island regions.
- Continued statehood: The UN declaration creates a “presumption in favour of continued statehood” for countries whose territory becomes submerged or uninhabitable, protecting their sovereignty and UN membership.
- Maritime boundaries: Countries can maintain their nautical boundaries despite coastal retreat. This is important for vulnerable island countries whose maritime rights could otherwise be affected by changing coastlines.
- Human displacement: The declaration also emphasises human rights, international cooperation and support for people forced to leave their homes because of rising seas.
India’s Coastal Vulnerability
- Extensive maritime exposure: India has a coastline of around 11,098 km, along with 1,298 offshore islands and islets, making sea-level rise and coastal erosion significant concerns.
- Eroding coastline: Around one-third of India’s mainland shoreline is eroding, with erosion particularly concentrated in certain coastal stretches.
- Rapid erosion zones: Nearly 400 km of coastline is retreating by more than 5 metres a year, while another 225 km is retreating by 3–5 metres annually.
- Sundarbans: Ghoramara Island in the Sundarbans shrank from around 2 sq km in 1972 to 3.6 sq km in 2022, while Lohachara Island has already disappeared. Such changes have resulted in displacement and livelihood difficulties for affected communities.
- Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar: These island groups are particularly significant because they extend India’s nautical boundaries into the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal.
Coastal Planning and Adaptation
- CRZ limitations: The 2019 Coastal Regulation Zone notification uses fixed no-build distances from the high-tide line. On rapidly retreating coastlines, such fixed buffers may become inadequate.
- Hazard-line approach: The Survey of India’s hazard line, which incorporates sea-level rise and shoreline change, provides a more dynamic basis for coastal planning.
- Climate-resilient infrastructure: Sea-level projections and local erosion rates need to be incorporated into coastal infrastructure planning, rather than relying only on present-day shoreline conditions.
- Planned relocation: India needs greater attention to people facing gradual displacement from coastal erosion, including land tenure and livelihood support for relocated communities.
- Adaptation finance: Rising seas require greater investment in coastal protection and adaptation. The declaration also highlights the need for increased climate finance for vulnerable developing countries.
- India’s position: India continues to emphasise equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) in global climate action, alongside greater support for adaptation.
- Way forward: Coastal planning needs to shift towards risk-based planning, stronger coastal infrastructure, scientific monitoring and planned adaptation, particularly in areas experiencing rapid shoreline retreat.
4 . ‘Public View’: Why SC/ST Act Covers Online Slurs
The Calcutta High Court has held that casteist slurs on social media can attract provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that the requirement of “public view” is not confined to physical spaces. The ruling recognises that the interpretation of the Act must remain responsive to the digital domain and technological advances.
Meaning of “Public View” under the SC/ST Act
- Statutory requirement: Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) criminalise intentionally insulting or intimidating an SC/ST member by caste name “in any place within public view.” The offence requires that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community, the accused intended to humiliate them on the basis of caste, and the incident occurred within public view.
- Public view is distinct from public place: The Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) held that “public view” refers to a situation where members of the public can witness or hear the alleged utterance.
- Digital domain: The Calcutta High Court held that the requirement of public view “transcends physical space into the digital domain”, allowing social-media remarks to fall within the scope of the provision when its requirements are satisfied.
- Actual public presence matters: The requirement depends on whether the alleged utterance was made in circumstances where members of the public could witness or hear it. The mere fact that an incident occurred within a particular premises does not automatically establish “public view”.
Application to Social Media and Technological Change
- Facebook casteist abuse: The case involved a Scheduled Caste petitioner who alleged that two men from general-caste communities had used casteist expletives against him on Facebook.
- Court’s reasoning: The High Court set aside the special court’s order that had described the case as “perverse” and directed the police to submit a closure report, holding that “public view” extends into the digital domain.
- Technology-responsive interpretation: The Kerala High Court in Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala (2022) observed that the SC/ST Act is an “ongoing statute” and should accommodate technological advances. A restrictive interpretation could defeat the purpose of the legislation.
- Balancing the statutory requirement: Expansion of “public view” to online spaces does not remove the requirement altogether; courts must still examine whether the specific statutory conditions are fulfilled in each case.
