Mains Practice Questions for the Day
- Q. India’s success against Left-Wing Extremism shows that internal security challenges require an integrated security-development-governance approach rather than a purely force-based response. Discuss.
- Q. Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is necessary but not sufficient to address judicial pendency in India. Discuss.
Q. India’s success against Left-Wing Extremism shows that internal security challenges require an integrated security-development-governance approach rather than a purely force-based response. Discuss.
(GS Paper III – Internal Security)
Introduction:
Left-Wing Extremism was one of India’s most serious internal security challenges, affecting tribal and remote regions for decades. According to PIB, India became effectively free from Left-Wing Extremism by 31 March 2026, with no district remaining LWE-affected. This was achieved through an integrated strategy combining security operations, infrastructure expansion, rehabilitation, tribal welfare and governance outreach.
Body
Integrated Strategy Against LWE
1. Strong security response:
The government strengthened the security grid through fortified police stations, CAPF camps, specialised forces like CoBRA, DRG and Greyhounds, and better inter-agency coordination. Technology such as drones, UAVs, satellite imagery and AI-based data analysis improved surveillance and intelligence-led operations.
2. Policy shift:
The National Policy and Action Plan to address LWE, 2015 replaced fragmented responses with a whole-of-government approach. It combined dialogue, security and coordination, along with schemes such as Security Related Expenditure, Special Infrastructure Scheme and Special Central Assistance.
3. Development and connectivity:
Roads, mobile towers, banks, post offices, schools, ITIs and Skill Development Centres expanded governance presence in remote areas. PIB notes that 15,189 km of roads and 9,497 mobile towers were created in affected regions.
4. Rehabilitation and welfare:
Surrendered cadres were provided financial assistance, stipends, skill training and livelihood support. Tribal welfare programmes such as EMRS, PM-JANMAN and Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan helped reduce alienation.
5. Visible outcomes:
LWE-affected districts declined from 126 in 2014 to zero by March-April 2026. Naxal-related incidents fell from 870 in 2014 to 33 in 2026, showing the weakening of extremist networks.
Conclusion:
India’s anti-LWE experience shows that internal security cannot be solved by force alone. Lasting peace requires the state to act both as a protector and provider. Security created space for development, development built trust, and trust enabled welfare delivery. The next challenge is to consolidate these gains through continuous governance, tribal livelihood support, community participation and protection of local dignity.
Q. Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is necessary but not sufficient to address judicial pendency in India. Discuss.
(GS Paper II – Judiciary / Justice Delivery / Governance)
Introduction:
Judicial pendency is a major challenge to India’s promise of speedy and effective justice. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to increase the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, by amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
Body
Need for Increasing Supreme Court Strength
1. Rising pendency:
As on 1 January 2026, around 92,101 cases were pending before the Supreme Court. In 2025, the Court received 75,410 fresh cases, but disposed of 65,615 cases, showing a persistent gap between institution and disposal.
2. More benches and better disposal:
Additional judges can enable the Court to constitute more benches and hear more matters simultaneously. This can improve disposal capacity and reduce pressure on existing judges.
3. Constitution Bench requirement:
Cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation require a Constitution Bench of at least five judges. Higher judge strength can help the CJI constitute such benches more frequently without disturbing regular case hearings.
4. Constitutional basis:
Under Article 124(1), the Supreme Court consists of the CJI and such number of other judges as Parliament may prescribe by law. Hence, Parliament can increase judge strength through ordinary legislation.
Why It Is Not Sufficient
However, increasing judges alone cannot solve pendency. Judicial delay is also linked to vacancies in High Courts and subordinate courts, delayed appointments, frequent adjournments, weak case management, rising appeals and heavy government litigation. The backlog across Indian courts has crossed 5.5 crore cases, with most cases pending in lower courts.
Way Forward
India must fill vacancies, strengthen lower courts, improve case management, reduce unnecessary government litigation, expand e-courts, and promote ADR mechanisms.
Conclusion:
Increasing Supreme Court strength is a necessary capacity reform, but speedy justice requires systemic judicial reforms across all levels. The aim must be a judiciary that is efficient, accessible, accountable and constitutionally responsive.
