The Hindu UPSC News Analysis For 18 February 2026

The Supreme Court has urged political leaders and high public office-holders to foster fraternity and live up to constitutional ideals. The court was hearing a petition highlighting instances of Chief Ministers, bureaucrats, and police officers making public statements that stigmatise communities, legitimise discriminatory governance, and erode public confidence in equal citizenship.

• Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression (subject to reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2))
• Article 51A(e) & (f) — Fundamental Duties: promote harmony, renounce practices derogatory to dignity
• Preamble — Fraternity assuring dignity of the individual and unity of the nation
• Sections 153A, 153B IPC / BNS equivalents — Promoting enmity between groups
• Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. UOI (2014) — SC urged Election Commission to curb hate speech
• Tehseen Poonawalla v. UOI (2018) — SC laid down preventive and remedial measures against mob violence
• Law Commission 267th Report — Recommended separate offence for hate speech

• Speech vs. Thought Paradox: Justice Nagarathna rightly noted that origin of speech is thought — the court can control “consequences of thought” but not thought itself. This reflects the delicate balance between free expression and public order.
• Selective Petition Problem: The Bench flagged that the petition named personalities only from one political party — undermining its credibility. Effective reform must be non-partisan.
• Implementation Gap: Existing laws (Sections 153A/B IPC) are rarely invoked against powerful leaders due to political patronage and delayed FIRs.
• Structural Lacuna: India lacks a dedicated anti-hate speech statute (unlike UK’s Public Order Act, 1986 or Germany’s NetzDG).
• Ethical Dimension: Public office-holders have a heightened duty of constitutional morality — their words carry the imprimatur of the State and shape administrative action.

• Enact a dedicated anti-hate speech law as recommended by the Law Commission (267th Report)
• Mandatory Code of Conduct for constitutional functionaries with enforceable sanctions
• Strengthen Election Commission’s power to deregister parties for repeated hate speech violations
• Adopt Rabat Plan of Action (UNHRC) threshold test for hate speech prosecution
• Foster constitutional literacy through education — link to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

India and France elevated their bilateral relationship to a ‘Special Global Strategic Partnership’ during PM Modi–President Macron meeting in Mumbai. Key outcomes include defence cooperation renewal for 10 years, amendment to DTAA protocol, annual Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue, and agreement on reciprocal deployment of armed forces.

• India-France Strategic Partnership since 1998 (post-Pokhran II — France was one of few nations that didn’t impose sanctions)
• Jaipur Declaration (2023) — Horizon 2047 Roadmap for bilateral ties
• Key pillars: Defence (Rafale, Scorpene), Space (ISRO-CNES), Nuclear Energy (Jaitapur), Counter-terrorism cooperation
• France is India’s key partner in the Indo-Pacific (France has overseas territories in Indian & Pacific Oceans)

• Strategic Convergence: Both nations advocate a multipolar world order without hegemony — directly relevant amid U.S. unilateralism and China’s rise.
• Indo-Pacific Synergy: France’s La Réunion and New Caledonia give it a direct stake in the Indo-Pacific — complementing India’s SAGAR doctrine.
• Defence Indigenisation Push: Demand for 50% indigenous content in Rafale is a test of Make in India credibility in high-tech defence manufacturing.
• Limitation: Trade volumes remain modest (~$14 billion) compared to India-US (~$200 billion). The relationship is defence-heavy, trade-light.
• Balancing Act: India must manage France ties alongside Russia (traditional defence partner) and the U.S. (Quad partner) — classic multi-alignment.

• Accelerate Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (6 EPR reactors) — critical for energy security and Net Zero goals
• Expand trade through India-EU FTA negotiations (France as key EU voice)
• Deepen Indo-Pacific trilateral cooperation (India-France-Australia)
• Leverage French expertise in submarine technology for next-gen Indigenous submarine programme
• Links to SDG 17 (Partnerships for Goals) and SDG 7 (Clean Energy)

The Supreme Court has directed the FSSAI to consider introducing mandatory front-of-package (FoP) warning labels on packaged food products high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat. The court expressed unhappiness at the regulator’s slow progress, noting the exercise had failed to yield any “positive result.”

• FSSAI — Established under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (under MoHFW)
• Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020
• ICMR-INDIAB Study 2023: 101 million diabetics (11.4%), 136 million pre-diabetics in India
• Global Precedents: Chile’s Octagonal Warning Labels (2016); UK’s Traffic Light System; Mexico’s black hexagonal warnings
• Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) — FSSAI’s proposed indigenous star-rating model (opposed as inadequate by petitioners)

• Regulatory Capture Risk: FSSAI’s preference for the softer INR (star-rating) model over explicit warnings suggests industry influence on the regulator — a classic commercial determinants of health problem.
• Evidence from Chile: After implementing black warning labels, Chile saw a 25% drop in sugary drink consumption — proving warning labels work.
• Right to Health: FoP labelling is part of the continuum of care starting with prevention — directly linked to Art. 21 (Right to Life).
• Ultra-processed food industry is a Rs. 3 lakh crore market in India — powerful lobbying interests resist transparent labelling.
• Equity concern: Low-income populations disproportionately consume ultra-processed foods — FoP labels are an equity-enhancing intervention.

• Adopt warning-based FoP labels (Chile/Mexico model) instead of star ratings — more effective for low-literacy populations
• Integrate FoP labelling with Eat Right India and Fit India campaigns
• Mandatory FoP labelling for all packaged food — not just select categories
• Strengthen FSSAI’s institutional independence from food industry lobbying
• Links to SDG 3 (Good Health) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger — quality nutrition)

The December 2025 IndiGo operational crisis caused fare surges across India, highlighting a systemic gap: India is becoming the world’s third-largest aviation market without adequate data systems for regulatory oversight. The article proposes adopting the U.S. DB1B database model — a 10% random sample of ticket-level fare data — for transparent, data-driven regulation.

• DGCA — Directorate General of Civil Aviation (under Ministry of Civil Aviation)
• Competition Commission of India (CCI) — Investigates abuse of dominant position under Competition Act, 2002
• US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) — Maintains DB1B database (10% ticket-level fare data since 1995)
• “Southwest Effect” — Entry of low-cost carriers into routes leads to fare drops and traffic increases
• India’s domestic air traffic: ~15 crore passengers/year; IndiGo commands ~60% market share

• Ad hoc vs. Systemic: Temporary fare caps (as done in Dec 2025) are fire-fighting measures — they don’t address structural market power abuse.
• Dominant position concern: IndiGo’s ~60% market share creates oligopolistic pricing power, especially on monopoly routes.
• Revenue Management Algorithms: Airlines use sophisticated pricing algorithms — without data transparency, regulators cannot distinguish legitimate demand-driven spikes from predatory pricing.
• Consumer protection gap: Passengers lack information asymmetry redress — there is no mechanism to compare historical fares or challenge surge pricing.
• Global best practice: The 10% sampling model protects proprietary algorithms while ensuring transparency — a practical middle ground.

• DGCA should adopt a 10% ticket-level fare sampling framework — published quarterly with appropriate delay
• Strengthen CCI’s sector-specific expertise in aviation competition
• Establish an Aviation Data Bureau within DGCA — mandate regular data collection and public access
• Use fare data to proactively identify monopoly routes and encourage new entrant incentives
• Links to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure) and consumer protection

PM Modi described AI as a “civilisational inflection point” and stressed that it must remain human-centric. He outlined India’s AI strategy resting on three pillars — sovereignty, inclusivity, and innovation. The IndiaAI Mission will add 20,000 more GPUs to the common compute cluster. Meanwhile, the AI Impact Summit faced organisational chaos on Day 1.

• IndiaAI Mission (2024) — Rs. 10,372 crore outlay for compute, innovation, datasets, skilling
• NITI Aayog’s National Strategy for AI (2018) — AI for All
• Common Compute Cluster — Government-provided GPU infrastructure for startups, researchers, academia
• SAHI (Secure AI for Health Initiative) — Governance framework for AI in healthcare
• BODH (Benchmarking Open Data Platform for Health AI) — Testing & validation of AI solutions
• Global Context: EU AI Act (2024) — world’s first comprehensive AI regulation; US Executive Order on AI Safety (2023)

• Compute Gap: Even with 20,000 additional GPUs, India’s compute capacity remains fraction of US/China. OpenAI alone is estimated to operate 100,000+ GPUs.
• Bias Challenge: India’s linguistic, caste, and regional diversity means AI bias can manifest in ways invisible in Western contexts — need for India-specific fairness frameworks.
• Job Disruption: AI is not replacing IT sector but transforming it — routine coding and testing jobs most vulnerable. Skilling must be continuous, not one-time.
• SC’s Warning on AI in Legal Drafting: AI-generated “hallucinated” case laws (like ‘Mercy vs Mankind’) pose serious risk to justice administration — need for regulation.
• Regulation Gap: Unlike the EU AI Act, India still lacks comprehensive AI-specific legislation — relying on voluntary norms and sector-specific guidelines.

• Enact a comprehensive AI governance framework — risk-based approach (EU AI Act model)
• Mandate algorithmic impact assessments for high-risk AI applications (healthcare, law, hiring)
• Scale AI skilling through FutureSkills Prime, NPTEL, and sector skill councils
• Develop India-specific AI fairness benchmarks reflecting linguistic and social diversity
• Links to SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 9 (Innovation), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Shashi Tharoor’s op-ed analyses the erosion of the rules-based liberal international order. He argues that the post-1945 system — built on law restraining power — is being hollowed out by U.S. unilateralism, China’s counter-architecture, and the decay of multilateral institutions. The world is in an “interregnum” — the old order fading, the new one unformed.

• UN Charter (1945) — Sovereign equality, non-aggression, collective security
• Bretton Woods Institutions — IMF, World Bank, GATT/WTO
• US withdrawal from multilateral frameworks: Paris Agreement (re-exit), WHO, UNESCO, arms control treaties
• China’s counter-institutions: BRI, AIIB, SCO expansion
• Kofi Annan’s phrase: “Problems without passports” — pandemics, climate change, cyber threats
• Dag Hammarskjöld: “UN not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”

• Hypocrisy to Indifference: Tharoor’s key insight — great powers moved from hypocrisy (violating norms while paying tribute to them) to indifference (openly rejecting norms). This is qualitatively more dangerous.
• Paradox of Power: Those tasked with maintaining order possess the greatest capacity to disrupt it — the system relied on their willingness not to.
• India’s Dilemma: India benefits from the rules-based order (trade, sovereignty protection) but also chafes at its unequal design (P5 veto, Bretton Woods governance). India seeks reform, not revolution.
• Middle Powers’ Role: Europe, India, Brazil, South Africa still invest in multilateralism as a shield against hegemonic bullying.
• Ethical Dimension: The promise of 1945 was that law could tame power. The peril of today is that power may once again tame law — a profound moral regression.

• Push for UNSC reform — expand permanent membership to reflect 21st-century realities
• Strengthen issue-based coalitions (ISA, CDRI, G20) as pragmatic multilateralism
• India should champion reformed multilateralism — not choose between blocs
• Build middle power coalitions (IBSA, India-EU) to preserve institutional order
• Links to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice) and SDG 17 (Partnerships)

A 27-year-old tech professional Yuvraj Mehta died when his car plunged into an unguarded, water-filled pit in Greater Noida. The article argues this was not an “accident” but a governance failure — cities don’t just witness such deaths, they produce them through systematic neglect of safety infrastructure.

• 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (1992) — Devolved 18 functions to ULBs; only 4 effectively transferred
• NCRB Data (2023): 1.73 lakh road accident deaths; urban areas account for 32% with higher per-lakh rates than rural areas
• Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs: 70% of cities lack functional drainage audits
• CAG Reports: Accountability typically stops at junior officials despite wider systemic failures
• Karol Bagh (Delhi) case 2024: 3 students drowned in flooded basement library — flagged by MCD audits but ignored

• Language of “Accident”: The framing of preventable deaths as “accidents” depoliticises what are essentially governance choices. Known risks ≠ unexpected events.
• Burden Shift: Urban governance shifts safety burden to individuals (slow down, choose routes carefully) rather than institutions — violating the social contract.
• Fragmented Accountability: Municipal bodies, PWD, contractors, inspectors — each responsible for a fragment, none for the whole. Accountability disperses after every death.
• 74th Amendment Gap: Only 4 of 18 functions effectively transferred to ULBs — local bodies lack fiscal autonomy, technical capacity, and political will.
• Visible vs. Invisible Development: Cities invest in flyovers and metros (photogenic) but neglect footpaths, drainage, electrical safety (unglamorous but life-saving).
• Ethical Dimension: When known risks are normalised and violations tolerated, responsibility has no face — systemic negligence as structural violence.

The article proposes three concrete steps:

• RTI-mandated Urban Risk Registers: Link citizen complaints to 30-day mitigation deadlines
• Quarterly CAG-style Audits: Track preventable urban deaths with ministerial accountability
• Independent Urban Safety Commissions: Empowered under the 74th Amendment with binding standards across States and municipalities
• Fully implement the 74th Amendment — fiscal devolution, capacity building, and genuine decentralisation
• Links to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) and SDG 16 (Accountable Institutions)

While cigarettes are taxed at 40% GST (highest slab), beedis are taxed at only 18% GST — making them significantly cheaper. Despite evidence that beedis pose equal or greater health risks than cigarettes (higher cancer incidence, 2.87x asthma risk), the tax differential is maintained under the guise of “protecting rural workers.” India’s cigarette taxes account for only 53% of retail price — well below the WHO-recommended 75%.

• WHO FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) — India is a party; recommends taxes = 75% of retail price
• GATS-2 (Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2016-17) — Monthly spend: ₹1,192 (cigarettes), ₹284 (beedis)
• Report on Tobacco Control in India (2022) — Beedi smokers: 2.87x asthma risk vs. 1.82x for cigarettes
• NFHS Data: Beedi smoking concentrated among older, rural, poorest 20% men
• Specific Excise vs. Ad Valorem: Specific excise (per quantity) is more effective in discouraging consumption

• Equity Paradox: Low beedi taxes supposedly “protect” poor workers, but the same workers end up spending more on healthcare costs — worsening inequality. A false economy.
• Consumption vs. Users: Beedi smokers are fewer but smoke more intensely (>5 sticks/day) — policy must look at consumption volume, not just user numbers.
• Industry Interference: India’s Tobacco Industry Interference Index shows all sectors — cigarettes, beedis, smokeless — influence policy in their favour. Beedi lobby is politically powerful in States like West Bengal, Karnataka.
• Tax Policy Lesson: Higher cigarette taxes contained consumption (GATS data). Lower beedi taxes allowed consumption to increase — proving tax-based deterrence works when applied consistently.
• Global Norm Gap: India’s 53% vs. WHO’s 75% benchmark — a significant gap that costs lives.

• Raise beedi GST to 40% (parity with cigarettes) — accompanied by social protection for beedi workers (skill retraining, alternative livelihoods)
• Shift to specific excise taxation (per quantity) rather than ad valorem — more effective in deterring consumption
• Earmark tobacco tax revenue for healthcare and cessation programmes
• Strengthen FCTC Article 5.3 implementation — insulate policy from industry interference
• Extend FoP health warnings on beedi packages — currently weaker than cigarettes
• Links to SDG 3 (Good Health), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)