Current affairs 26th July By Right IAS
Supreme Court Verdict on Delimitation
Background of the Case A petition was filed by Prof. K. Purushottam Reddy. The plea demanded delimitation (redrawing of Assembly constituencies) in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, citing the 2022 delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir as a precedent. Supreme Court’s Key Observations 1. 2. No Discrimination: The Court ruled that the Centre did not discriminate against Andhra Pradesh or Telangana by not conducting delimitation. No violation of legitimate expectations of these States’ electorates. Unequal Cannot Be Treated Equally: States and Union Territories operate under different constitutional frameworks. Treating Andhra Pradesh/Telangana and J&K equally would be “treating unequals equally”
Constitutional Bar – Article 170(3): Delimitation in States is constitutionally frozen until after the first Census post-2026. Therefore, delimitation in AP and Telangana is not legally permitted until then. Jammu and Kashmir Exception: J&K is a Union Territory and not bound by the freeze under Article 170. Its delimitation in 2022 was based on the 2011 Census, legally permissible. Distinction of Domains: 1. 2. States and UTs function in distinct constitutional domains. Delimitation in J&K cannot be cited as a precedent for States. Risk of Inequality and Discontent: Granting relief to AP and Telangana could lead to similar demands from other States. Specifically cited were four North-Eastern States Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland which were also excluded from delimitation via 2021 notification. Impact on Electoral Framework: Any exception before 2026 would destabilize electoral uniformity. It would also blur the line between constitutional norms and political discretion.
The Hindu
Kargil to Pahalgam — India’s Changing Security Posture
Kargil War (1999): A Turning Point Fought between May 3 – July 26, 1999, in high-altitude areas of Kashmir. First war broadcast live on Indian television, bringing visuals of war into people’s homes. Indian Army showed grit, determination, and patriotism, successfully evicting Pakistani intruders. Pakistan was forced to withdraw and requested a ceasefire. Pahalgam Terror Attack (2025) and Operation Sindoor April 22, 2025: Pakistan-based terrorists attacked civilians in Pahalgam, killing 26 tourists (men targeted specifically). India’s response: Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025): Precision strikes on 9 terror bases and 11 Pakistani military air-bases. BrahMos missile strike reportedly damaged a nuclear storage facility near Nur Khan Base. Pakistan quickly requested a ceasefire, mirroring 1999.
Comparison of Kargil and Pahalgam Kargil: Demonstrated India’s conventional war capabilities under nuclear threat. Pahalgam: Signalled a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism with swift and bold military retaliation. Both events became milestones in India’s defence doctrine evolution. Strategic Context of Kargil War Took place a year after India’s 1998 nuclear tests; followed by Pakistan’s own tests. India was economically weak and had a coalition government. The war occurred amid a peace initiative (PM Vajpayee’s Lahore visit in February 1999). International sympathy for India’s fight against terrorism was limited before 9/11. Lessons from Kargil Intelligence Failure: Military and civilian agencies failed to detect Pakistani infiltration. Delayed Decisions: Lack of real time intel and aerial surveillance. Operational Weaknesses: Troops lacked high-altitude gear. Inadequate artillery support and communication.
