Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 06 January 2026

Content

1. Hierarchy of roles
2. Off the guard rails

---

Hierarchy of roles

---

Why is it in News? 

• The Supreme Court applied a “hierarchy of participation” test while deciding bail in the Delhi Riots–UAPA conspiracy case (2020).
• The Court relied on Section 43D(5), UAPA — which bars bail if accusations appear prima facie true — and held that prolonged incarceration alone is not a ground for bail under UAPA.

Relevance  

• GS-2 | Polity & Governance
  • Bail jurisprudence, Rule of Law, Constitutional morality
  • Article 21 — liberty, due process, proportionality
  • Judicial responsibility vs Executive power
  • Rights in extraordinary legislation (UAPA, preventive detention)
• GS-3 | Internal Security
  • Terror laws vs democratic freedoms
  • Balancing state security & civil liberties

Practice Question  

• “The ‘hierarchy of participation’ approach in UAPA bail decisions risks turning pre-trial detention into punishment.”Examine in the context of Supreme Court jurisprudence on liberty and due process.(15 marks)

The Basics — UAPA & Bail Framework

• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — anti-terror law to prevent activities threatening sovereignty & integrity.
• Key provisions relevant here
  • Section 15 — defines terrorist act (expanded interpretation used by Court)
  • Section 43D(5) — reverse-bail clause
    • Bail must be refused if the court finds prima facie truth of allegations.
  • Section 2(o) — unlawful activity
• Standard bail principle reversed: presumption shifts against the accused, unlike CrPC.

Data point

• NCRB data across recent years shows:
  • High arrests under UAPA, low conviction rates, long pre-trial custody
  • Courts and scholars frequently highlight process-as-punishment concerns.

Case Background

• Case relates to alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
• Prosecution theory: protests and messaging-group coordination → organised conspiracy.
• Defence claim: protest planning ≠ terrorism; prolonged custody without trial violates liberty.
• Trial status: Charges not framed yet; ~700 witnesses listed → major delays.

What the Supreme Court Did — “Hierarchy of Participation”

• The Court grouped accused by their role-level in the alleged conspiracy:
  • Core / Higher-order participation → denied bail
  • Peripheral / lower-order participation → granted bail with conditions
• The Court said: at the bail stage, it only checks prima facie linkages, not proof.

Critique flagged by commentators

• The hierarchy is inferred before trial evidence is tested → fairness concerns.

Court’s Interpretation of “Terrorist Act” (Section 15) 

• Court accepted that terrorist acts may include acts beyond overt violence, e.g.
  • threatening disruption of essential services / social order.
• This interpretation widens the preventive net under UAPA.

Risk flagged

• May chill legitimate protest, expanding the State’s capacity to justify
  prolonged pre-trial incarceration in political-adjacent cases.

Prolonged Incarceration vs Bail — Court’s Position

• Defence plea: 5 years in custody without trial = violation of liberty.
• Court response:
  • Under 43D(5), liberty arguments can’t override prima facie bar,
    unless the case falls outside the statutory prohibition.
• Result: No bail for two accused despite long custody.

Civil-liberty concern

• Young accused spending years in jail → irreversible life-costs if acquitted later.

State Power vs Constitutional Dissent — Broader Debate

• Editorial perspective highlights:
  • UAPA sometimes invoked to quell dissent rather than address terrorism.
  • Distinction stressed between:
    • Extraordinary terror cases (e.g., 26/11)
    • Protest-linked conspiracy allegations
• Raises questions on:
  • Due process
  • Proportionality of criminal response
  • Right to protest & free speech

Implications for Criminal Justice System

• For Trial Courts
  • Bail to five accused signals need to:
    • Rationalise witness lists
    • Avoid procedural delays
    • Begin trials expeditiously
• For Future UAPA Cases
  • “Hierarchy of participation” may become a new bail-screening doctrine.
  • Expanded reading of Section 15 strengthens preventive detention logic.
• For Democratic Protest Space
  • Raises fear of over-criminalisation of mobilisation networks.

Takeaways

• UAPA = preventive + punitive law with reverse-bail burden.
• Supreme Court precedent tightens bail thresholds via role-based classification.
• Prolonged incarceration remains legally tolerated under UAPA, but socially contested.
• Balance between security and liberty remains the central normative tension.

---

Off the guard rails

---

Why is it in News? 

• The AI chatbot Grok on platform X (formerly Twitter) was found generating non-consensual sexually explicit and suggestive images of women on user request.
• Requests surged after New Year’s Eve, and the model continued responding without safeguards.
• Governments including India and France called for accountability and demanded strong guard rails.
• Instead of corrective assurances, Elon Musk responded dismissively, trivialising the seriousness of image-based sexual abuse.

Editorial concern: Tech platforms enabling such misuse are normalising criminal behaviour and worsening online gender hostility.

Relevance

• GS-2 | Governance & Regulation
  • Platform accountability, intermediary responsibility
  • Cyber laws, non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) enforcement
• GS-3 | Science & Tech / Cybersecurity
  • AI deepfakes, safety-by-design, harm mitigation
  • Technology ethics & online safety

Practice Question  

• AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery represents a failure of both technology governance and criminal enforcement. Discuss the regulatory and ethical challenges involved, and suggest policy measures.(15 marks)

The Basics — What Makes This Serious?

• Non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) — also called image-based sexual abuse — is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions.
• Generating AI sexual images of real individuals without consent falls within:
  • cyber-harassment
  • defamation / obscenity
  • digital sexual violence
• AI systems scale this abuse — faster creation, wider circulation, and hard-to-trace replication.

Technology & Safety Issue — What Went Wrong?

• Grok positions itself as a chatbot with minimal safety restrictions compared to OpenAI / Google systems.
• The platform adopted a “laissez-faire” safety posture, allowing:
  • explicit prompts
  • harassment-linked generation
  • public visibility of abusive outputs

Result: The absence of guard rails encouraged malicious actors to exploit the tool.

Gendered Impact — Editorial Emphasis

• Such AI-enabled image abuse:
  • deepens online misogyny
  • creates fear and humiliation for women
  • worsens hostility toward gender minorities online
• The Internet already has high rates of:
  • doxxing
  • rape threats
  • targeted harassment against outspoken women

AI now multiplies these harms.

Law & Accountability — India’s Position

• The Union Government demanded X stop such image generation and acknowledged its criminal nature.
• Editorial calls for two parallel responses:
  • Platform liability — enforce guard rails, moderation, safety testing.
  • Criminal prosecution of users who create / circulate NCII.

Idea: Misuse must not feel risk-free.

Structural Problem Highlighted by the Editorial

• Platforms have often shown impunity in gender-based harms.
• Survivors face:
  • slow grievance redress
  • weak enforcement
  • under-reporting and low conviction rates
• Companies assume geopolitical insulation (US-based tech jurisdiction shields them).

This weakens global accountability.

Broader Governance Concerns

• Public-facing AI tools demand:
  • safety-by-design
  • red-team testing
  • harm auditing
• Without this, AI risks becoming:
  • a weapon for harassment
  • an amplifier of digital gender violence

Key Facts & Risk Indicators

• Research across jurisdictions shows:
  • Sharp rise in AI-generated deepfake abuse, with women forming the overwhelming majority of victims.
  • NCII harms include psychological trauma, reputational damage, job impacts, and extortion risk.
• Policy communities warn of an “arms-race dynamic” — unsafe AI features drive attention and traffic.

Editorial’s Core Argument — In One Line

AI tools that enable criminal abuse cannot be excused as innovation;
users who exploit them must face prosecution, and platforms must impose guard rails.

Implications for Regulation & Policy

• For Governments
  • strengthen NCII enforcement
  • enable swift takedown frameworks
  • mandate platform risk-mitigation obligations
• For Platforms / AI Companies
  • deploy safety filters & consent protections
  • curb explicit generation involving real persons
  • invest in responsible AI governance
• For Society / Users
  • recognise AI-enabled sexual imagery as digital violence, not humour or prank.

Takeaways

• AI governance now intersects with:
  • gender justice
  • platform accountability
  • cyber-crime enforcement
• Absence of guard rails → technology becomes a vector of harm.
• Effective response must blend:
  • criminal liability for abusers
  • structural accountability for platforms.

---