Content :

1. India’s uneasy balancing act in the Bay of Bengal
2. Serving justices, but not justice

India’s uneasy balancing act in the Bay of Bengal

Positive Developments in Bay of Bengal Maritime Trade

• Rising trade volumes at key eastern ports: Visakhapatnam, Paradip, and Haldia.
• BIMSTEC Maritime Transport Cooperation Agreement (2024) signed to ease regulatory friction and reduce port costs.
• Infrastructure boost under Sagarmala Programme, improving logistics and port capacity.
• Coastal cargo movement has doubled in a decade, aided by GST cuts on bunker fuel and shipping incentives.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations ) ,GS 3(Infrastructure)

Practice Question : India’s strategic ambitions in the Bay of Bengal are undermined by its own policy inconsistencies. Critically examine in the context of recent developments involving Bangladesh and BIMSTEC.(250 Words)

India’s Strategic Push for Regional Integration

• Emphasis on connectivity with Southeast Asia via eastern ports.
• India aims to be the regional integrator in Bay of Bengal through investments in port capacity and policy harmonization.
• BIMSTEC seen as key platform to counter China’s influence and deepen regional links.

Controversial Decision: Withdrawal of Transshipment Facility to Bangladesh

• India withdrew a key facility that allowed Bangladesh to route third-country exports via Indian ports.
• Official reason: Terminal congestion, impacting Indian exporters.
• Perceived in Dhaka as a retaliatory move linked to Bangladesh’s growing ties with China and comments calling Indian NE states “landlocked”.
• Undermines India’s projection of the Northeast as a strategic connectivity hub.

Diplomatic Fallout and Trade Tensions

• Bangladesh’s exports (especially garments) impacted due to reliance on Indian transshipment routes.
• Alternatives (e.g., via Sri Lanka) are costlier and slower.
• India later restricted imports of several Bangladeshi goods via land ports in Northeast, citing Dhaka’s earlier restrictions on Indian yarn.
• Dhaka perceives India’s actions as disproportionate and politically motivated.

Implications for Regional Trust and BIMSTEC

• India’s actions introduce political conditionality in what was perceived as neutral trade infrastructure.
• Smaller BIMSTEC nations (Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar) watching closely; fear India’s trade policy may become transactional and unpredictable.
• Perception risk: If India uses economic leverage for political signalling, it could erode regional goodwill and stall BIMSTEC progress.

Credibility vs. Capacity

• India has superior port infrastructure and maritime logistics in the Bay.
• However, leadership in the region needs credibility—trust in consistent, rules-based facilitation.
• Without that, countries may hedge their bets and increase alignment with China or ASEAN-centric mechanisms.

The Larger Strategic Dilemma

• Bay of Bengal is at a crossroads: It could become a bridge between South and Southeast Asia or a new arena for geopolitical contest.
• India must clearly separate economic integration from political signalling.
• Suggestion: India should consider a rules-based reinstatement mechanism for trade decisions like transshipment, to rebuild trust.

Conclusion

• India’s actions may undermine cooperative regionalism if trade becomes a tool for political messaging.
• To sustain leadership and integration goals, India must balance strategic interests with transparent, trust-building economic policies.
• So far, the signals India has sent to its neighbours are mixed and potentially counterproductive.

Serving justices, but not justice

Triggering Incident: Justice Varma Case

• March 14 fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence led to the discovery of half-burnt sacks of cash.
• Within 10 days, he was stripped of work and transferred; later faced impeachment proceedings.
• Supreme Court shared selective information (video, photos, redacted letters), but withheld crucial documents, including police and judicial reports.
• The alleged cash sacks are missing, reportedly removed by staff — a lapse in evidence security.

Relevance : GS 2- Polity and Governance (Judiciary) , GS 4-Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude (Probity in Public Life)

Practice Question : Judicial independence cannot be a cover for lack of accountability. Critically analyse the challenges posed by the ‘in-house procedure’ in ensuring transparency in judicial misconduct cases.(250 Words)

Opaque ‘In-House Procedure’ of Judiciary

• Misconduct inquiries into higher judiciary handled by fellow judges only.
• Procedure is entirely confidential: complaints, inquiry status, and findings are not made public.
• No clear standards of evaluation or due process; findings aren’t appealable.
• Alleged lack of public accountability despite decisions affecting institutional integrity.

Precedents Highlighting the Problem

• 2020: Andhra Pradesh CM’s allegations against Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice J.K. Maheshwari were dismissed summarily without transparent inquiry; no follow-up known.
• 2019: Sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi:
  • Complainant denied legal assistance and access to the final report.
  • Later reinstated with full back pay, despite earlier dismissal of her claims.
  • SC instead investigated a non-existent “conspiracy” — a move seen as deflective.
• Justice Surya Kant (future CJI, Nov 2025):
  • Faced corruption allegations regarding bail bribes and illegal assets.
  • Justice A.K. Goel had raised red flags, yet there’s no evidence of inquiry before his elevation.

Judiciary’s Credibility vs Independence Dilemma

• Judicial independence used as a reason for shielding internal inquiries from public view.
• However, secrecy undermines accountability, trust, and democratic values.
• Right to information, upheld by SC itself, contradicts the opacity in its own functioning.

Call for Transparency & Reform

• Advocates for:
  • Making in-house inquiry procedures, findings, and reports public.
  • Ensuring external oversight or appellate mechanism to review findings.
• Transparency would:
  • Deter misconduct,
  • Enhance public trust,
  • Support the judiciary’s own credibility.

Conclusion

• The in-house procedure currently resembles secretive conclaves, lacking transparency and public scrutiny.
• Real judicial integrity requires accountability, not just independence.
• Without reform, public confidence in the judiciary will erode further — and rightly so.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for academic purposes