Pakistan military conducts ‘highly co-ordinated’ strikes against Iran: Report

Washington: In a move that stunned markets and political observers alike, US President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a 90-day pause on his sweeping tariff regime—granting relief to all countries except China. Just a day earlier, such a reversal had seemed unimaginable.

Trump said the pause was prompted by the cooperative stance of over 75 nations, which had refrained from retaliating against his earlier tariffs. These countries, he claimed, chose negotiation over confrontation. During the pause, a reduced reciprocal tariff of 10% will be in place.

However, Trump made it clear that China would face no such leniency. Citing Beijing's alleged trade abuses and “lack of respect” for global markets, he announced an immediate hike in tariffs on Chinese imports to 125%, up from the earlier 104%.

“At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the US and other countries is no longer sustainable or acceptable,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Despite repeatedly resisting pressure from within his own party and business circles to halt the tariff spree, Trump’s sudden pivot was reportedly triggered by alarm bells inside the US Treasury Department. According to CNN, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent raised red flags about a dramatic selloff in the bond market, which, if left unchecked, could spiral into a financial crisis.

Speaking to the media after the announcement, Trump seemed to suggest that the decision came from instinct rather than strategy.

“We didn’t have access to lawyers… We wrote it up from our hearts. You have to be flexible,” he said.

The markets responded instantly. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged over 2,500 points, while the Nasdaq jumped 12.2%, its best day in 24 years. The S&P 500 rose 6%, oil prices climbed more than 4%, and the dollar strengthened.

Impact on India

India, which had been hit with a 26% customized reciprocal tariff, saw its markets rattled in recent weeks. The pause offers a much-needed breather, as New Delhi works to finalize a multi-sectoral trade deal with Washington.

Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal confirmed that talks are underway. “We hope to address these issues and conclude this agreement expeditiously,” he said, underlining the strong economic ties between the two nations.

Bengaluru: The leaked contents of Karnataka’s long-awaited caste census suggest a significant policy shift—extending the creamy layer rule to Category 1 castes under the backward classes reservation list. This category includes some of the most disadvantaged nomadic and microscopic communities.

The commission, headed by Jayaprakash Hegde, has reportedly recommended that the creamy layer policy—already applied to categories 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B—be extended to Category 1. The report notes that some groups within Category 1 have achieved considerable progress socially, economically, educationally, and politically, thus justifying the introduction of a filtering mechanism.

The panel emphasized the growing inequality within Category 1 itself, stating that children from impoverished farming and labourer families are unable to compete with the children of wealthier households in the same category.

“The competition is stiff here and there is a threat that this category may become one populated by the rich in due course if the creamy layer policy is not implemented,” the report reportedly states.

It further underlines that to fulfil the constitutional goal of equitable opportunities, the policy must be introduced across all categories of backward classes, including Category 1.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.