Daily Newspaper Notes: February 19, 2026

Diversity-Oriented Judicial Appointments and Regional Benches of the Supreme Court

Core Points

• Private member Bill introduced by P. Wilson (DMK) to amend the Constitution.
• Objectives: bring diversity in judicial appointments and set up regional benches of the Supreme Court.
• Constitutionally, the President appoints judges after consultation with specified authorities (Articles 124 and 217).
• Seat of the Supreme Court is in Delhi or other places as decided by the CJI with Central government approval (Article 130).
• Collegium system evolved through Supreme Court judgments (First, Second, and Third Judges cases).
• Collegium ensures judicial independence but faces criticism for lack of transparency and accountability.
• NJAC (99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014) attempted to replace collegium but was struck down in 2015.
• Bill mandates proportionate representation of SC, ST, OBC, religious minorities, and women in appointments.
• Bill sets a 90-day timeline for the Central government to notify collegium recommendations.
• Bill proposes regional benches of the Supreme Court at New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai.
• Regional benches to have full jurisdiction except constitutional matters, which remain with the Constitution Bench in Delhi.
• Judiciary, through the collegium, bears primary responsibility for ensuring social diversity.
• Long-term reform suggested: revive NJAC with broader, more inclusive composition.
• Regional benches can be set up under existing constitutional provisions.

Governance Challenges and Guardrails for Military Artificial Intelligence

Core Points

• India did not sign the ‘Pathways to Action’ declaration at the third REAIM summit.
• Governance of military AI often remains outside broader AI regulation debates despite national security implications.
• Only about one-third of participating countries signed the declaration this year.
• Dual-use nature of AI complicates verification of compliance with military AI restrictions.
• AI is increasingly viewed as a ‘game-changing’ technology with wide-ranging military applications.
• States perceive military advantage from AI and are reluctant to accept constraints.
• Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) remain the most controversial military AI use case.
• UN CCW Group of Governmental Experts failed to reach conclusions or recommendations on LAWS.
• No international consensus exists on the definition of LAWS.
• Countries with limited AI capacity seek binding regulation, while technologically advanced states prefer higher thresholds or oppose binding frameworks.
• India maintains that a legally binding instrument on LAWS is premature.
• India aligns with ideas of ‘responsible’ AI use but has not signed recent non-binding blueprints or declarations.
• Moral arguments for banning military AI are unlikely to succeed due to weak norms.
• Non-binding mechanisms are suggested as a practical starting point.
• India could push for a non-binding framework consistent with its interests and principles of accountability.
• Binding frameworks may be possible after norms evolve and more deployment experience emerges.

India’s “Third Way” Approach to AI Governance

Core Points

• Global debate exists on the “right” model for AI governance amid risks and opportunities.
• India positions itself as offering a “Third Way” for AI governance.
• Existing models: EU’s compliance-heavy regime, U.S.’s hands-off approach, China’s centralised state model.
• India’s approach recognises that these models do not suit the global majority.
• In November 2025, India released AI governance guidelines.
• Guidelines are a governance framework, not merely regulatory.
• Framework covers adoption, diffusion, diplomacy, and capacity-building.
• Focus on scaling AI for inclusive development in healthcare, agriculture, education, and public administration.
• Designed to work through existing legal structures and remain agile and forward-looking.
• India emphasises strategic autonomy, public-private partnerships, and local-context governance.
• India can convene coordination among middle powers on AI safety and governance.
• Governance coordination is limited if worker protection and social safeguards are absent.
• Need for minimum measures on transparency, accountability, whistleblower protection, and safeguarding vulnerable groups.
• A people-centred framework must accompany innovation-driven governance.
• Next 12 months critical for testing viability of India’s model.

India–France Special Global Strategic Partnership and Strategic Convergence

Core Points

• Elevation of ties signals durability of relationship and shared commitment to strategic autonomy.
• Partnership avoids rigid bloc politics and goes beyond a purely bilateral framework.
• France remains one of India’s most dependable partners.
• PM Narendra Modi and President Emmanuel Macron held talks in Mumbai with focus on defence and AI.
• Long-term convergence articulated in the Horizon 2047 Roadmap.
• Strategic convergence shaped by shared assessment of a strained international order.
• Defence ties continue to be upgraded between the two countries.
• India seeks to diversify defence imports and reduce dependence on Russia.
• Cooperation spans emerging technologies, critical minerals, space, climate action, global health, and AI.
• France respects India’s strategic autonomy, including India’s choices regarding Russia.
• India and France reaffirm commitment to a “rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region”.
• India views Europe as an independent strategic actor, not merely aligned with a US-led West.
• India–France partnership acts as a conduit for deeper India–Europe engagement.