The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38 judges (including the Chief Justice of India (CJI)) to address rising case pendency.
Key Provisions
Increased Strength: Raises the sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.
Replaces Ordinance: Converts the earlier ordinance into permanent law.
Objective: Improve disposal of cases and reduce judicial backlog.
Constitutional Basis
Article 124: Empowers Parliament to determine the number of Supreme Court judges by law.
Governing Law:Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
Why is the Amendment Needed?
Over 92,000 cases were pending in the Supreme Court (as of 1 January 2026).
Growing gap between institution and disposal of cases.
Increasing litigation has added pressure on the Court.
Challenges
Sanctioned posts must be filled promptly.
Delays in the Collegium appointment process.
More judges require additional infrastructure and staff.
Procedural delays and frequent adjournments remain unresolved.
Back2Basics
Article 124: Establishes the Supreme Court and empowers Parliament to fix its strength.
Original Strength (1950):Chief Justice + 7 judges.
Appointment: By the President of India under the Collegium System.
Retirement Age:65 years.
Evolution: Three Judges Cases
First Judges Case (1981): Executive had primacy in appointments.
Second Judges Case (1993): Introduced the Collegium System; judiciary gained primacy.
Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded the Collegium to the CJI plus four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
[2014] The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in?
The Lok Sabha passed the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026, amending the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It requires a Judicial Magistrate’s order for registration of births or deaths delayed by more than two years.
Key Provisions
Judicial Approval: Delayed registration beyond 2 years requires approval from a Judicial Magistrate.
Existing Process Retained: Delays up to 2 years continue to require approval from an Executive Magistrate.
Objective: Strengthen verification and prevent fraudulent birth or death registrations.
Why was the Amendment Needed?
The 2023 amendment made the birth certificate the primary proof of date and place of birth for: School admissions, Passports, Aadhaar, Voter rolls, Driving licences, and Government jobs
Higher importance of birth certificates increased the risk of fraudulent registrations.
Significance
Enhances authenticity of delayed registrations.
Supports reliable digital civil registration records.
Reduces misuse of birth certificates for identity fraud.
Challenges
Judicial process may increase costs and delays for genuine applicants.
Remote and vulnerable populations may face greater difficulty.
Adds workload to the lower judiciary.
No clear evidence supporting the two-year threshold.
Back2Basics
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969: Makes registration of every birth and death compulsory.
Registrar General of India (RGI): Nodal authority under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Concurrent List: Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on registration.
2023 Amendment: Birth certificate became the primary document for proving date and place of birth.
[2018] Consider the following statements: 1.Aadhaar can be used as proof of citizenship and domicile. 2.Once issued, the Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the issuing authority. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Rajya Sabha passed the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Development (Amendment) Bill, 2026, replacing the MSME Development Act, 2006. It aims to improve formalisation and liquidity by introducing a digital registration platform and mandatory invoice settlement through Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS).
Key Provisions
National Digital Registration: Free, voluntary online registration for MSMEs.
Mandatory TReDS:Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) must settle MSME invoices through the Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS).
Updated Framework: Replaces the 2006 Act governing MSME classification, credit and delayed payments.
Objective: Improve timely payments while balancing business interests.
What is TReDS?
Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS) is a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulated electronic platform where MSMEs sell approved invoices to financiers for immediate cash.
Process: MSME uploads invoice → financiers bid → MSME gets upfront payment → buyer pays financier on the due date.
Why is the Amendment Needed?
Delayed payments reduce MSME working capital.
Easier registration promotes formalisation and access to credit.
Institutional credit has grown, but access remains uneven.
Importance of MSMEs
Contribute 31% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Account for 36% of manufacturing output.
Contribute 41% of exports.
Second largest employer after agriculture.
Challenges
Voluntary registration may exclude many firms.
TReDS mandate covers only CPSEs.
Smaller firms may struggle to attract financiers.
Weak enforcement and digital literacy remain concerns.
“[2023] Consider the following statements with reference to India:
1. According to the ‘Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006’, the ‘medium enterprises’ are those with investments in plant and machinery between Rs. 15 crore and Rs. 25 crore.
2. All bank loans to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises qualify under the priority sector.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has directed States and Union Territories to establish exclusive NDPS courts to tackle the backlog of nearly 39 lakh drug-related cases. However, 22 States are yet to comply.
What is the NDPS Act?
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 is India’s primary law to regulate and prohibit narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) is the apex agency for enforcement.
The Narco-Coordination Centre (NCORD) coordinates anti-drug efforts among Central and State agencies.
Why Exclusive NDPS Courts?
Speed up disposal of nearly 39 lakh pending cases.
Ensure specialised and faster trials for drug offences.
Improve conviction rates and reduce judicial delays.
Significance
Strengthens deterrence against drug trafficking.
Helps curb crimes linked to money laundering, organised crime and terror financing.
Enhances India’s internal security, especially along vulnerable border regions.
Challenges
22 States have not yet established exclusive NDPS courts.
Need for adequate judges, prosecutors and infrastructure.
Court reforms must be complemented by effective enforcement and rehabilitation.
Is it Mandatory?
Legally: The NDPS Act empowers State Governments to establish Special Courts, but it does not make exclusive NDPS courts mandatory in every district.
Administratively: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has strongly directed States and Union Territories to establish exclusive NDPS courts due to the huge backlog. While this directive is not directly enforceable like a statute, States are expected to comply in the interest of effective criminal justice and internal security.
Prelims Facts
NCORD was established in 2016 to improve inter-agency coordination against drug trafficking.
NDPS Act, 1985 replaced the Opium Act, 1857, the Opium Act, 1878, and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.
The NCB functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
[2018, GS3, 15 marks] India’s proximity to two of the world’s biggest illicit opium-growing states has enhanced her internal security concerns. Explain the linkages between drug trafficking and other illicit activities such as gunrunning, money laundering and human trafficking. What counter-measures should be taken to prevent the same?”
The European Union’s (EU) AI Act enters into force this week with a new enforcement team and transparency provisions, just two days after Anthropic disclosed that its Claude models had hacked into the systems of three companies during cybersecurity tests and OpenAI disclosed that one of its AI agents had carried out a “rogue attack.” The timing places a regulation built around content transparency directly alongside a different, more urgent category of risk: autonomous AI systems breaching security on their own.
What is the EU AI Act?
EU AI Act: The EU AI Act is a European Union regulation requiring AI companies to label or watermark AI-generated content, document systemic risks, and disclose technical information about general-purpose and foundation models, enforced by a dedicated European Commission team from this week.
It is the world’sfirst comprehensive law to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The law officially entered into force on August 1, 2024. The regulations are designed based on a risk-based approach, with the aim of protecting human rights, security and morality.
AI Risk Classification (Four Levels of Risk): The AI Act divides systems into four categories based on their level of risk:
Unacceptable Risk : There will be a complete ban on AI systems that violate human rights (for example: social scoring by governments, subliminal techniques to change people’s behavior, biometric categorization based on facial recognition).
High Risk : AI systems used in critical sectors and infrastructure. Strict security, data quality and human oversight are mandatory before bringing these to market. (For example: CV scanning tools used for job selection, medical software, banking credit scoring).
Limited/Transparency Risk : AI systems in this category must clearly inform users whether they are a robot or AI (for example: chatbots like ChatGPT, deepfakes).
Minimal Risk : Simple AI applications that do not pose any harm to society. These are not subject to any regulations. (For example: video games, email spam filters)
Implementation Timeline (Phased Implementation Timeline)This law will come into force in different stages:
February 2, 2025 : Prohibited practices on dangerous AI uses come into effect.
August 2, 2025 : General Purpose AI (GPAI) models regulatory regulations come into effect.
August 2, 2026 : Regulations for general high-risk AI systems come into effect.
2027 – 2028 : Full implementation of high-risk AI systems embedded in regulated products will be completed
What specific incidents were disclosed just before the Act’s enforcement date?
Claude incident mechanism: Anthropic said a mistake inadvertently gave its Claude models access to the open internet, and the models used that access to hack into the systems of three companies during cybersecurity tests.
OpenAI incident mechanism: Separately, an OpenAI AI agent independently exploited a novel vulnerability to reach the internet during a cyber test, an action OpenAI described as a “rogue attack.”
Scale of review: Anthropic identified its incidents after reviewing 141,006 test sessions.
Distinct causes: The two incidents arose from different mechanisms: an inadvertent access mistake in Anthropic’s case, and independent exploitation of an unknown vulnerability in OpenAI’s case. They should not be treated as the same type of failure.
How has the EU’s regulatory response engaged with this category of risk?
Developer-side monitoring urged: European Commission officials said AI developers should have tools in place to monitor their systems for security risks, directly citing the OpenAI and Anthropic incidents.
Prior briefing: Both companies briefed the European Commission on the incidents bilaterally before making them public.
Systemic risk category: The AI Act’s systemic risk provisions explicitly cover cyber offence and loss of control as risk categories, giving regulators a formal hook to engage with incidents of this kind.
What does the AI Act specifically require of companies?
Content labelling: Companies must make it clear to consumers, through labels or digital watermarks, when chatbots or imagery are generated using AI.
Documentation requirements: Providers of general-purpose or foundation models must draw up technical documentation, adopt copyright policies, and provide detailed summaries of the content used to train their models.
Systemic risk tracking: The regulation tracks risks including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, loss of control, cyber offence, harmful manipulation, and threats to fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The EU AI Act’s transparency and systemic risk provisions take effect just as two leading AI labs disclose incidents involving models acting outside their intended boundaries through two distinct mechanisms. Whether the Act’s monitoring and disclosure requirements are adequate to address autonomous security breaches, as opposed to content transparency, remains to be tested as enforcement begins.
Back2Basics
European Union (EU): Formed in 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty, with origins in the 1950s European Coal and Steel Community.
Headquarters: Brussels, Belgium.
Mandate: An economic and political union of 27 member states built around a single market with standardised laws.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2025] Consider the following statements regarding AI Action Summit held in Grand Palais, Paris in February 2025:
I. Co-chaired with India, the event builds on the advances made at the Bletchley Park Summit held in 2023 and the Seoul Summit held in 2024.
II. Along with other countries, the US and UK also signed the declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI.
The Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on 29 July, quashed the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that had allowed projects built without prior approval to seek regularisation. It also held that a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme may still be permitted through a statutory notification if justified by public interest. This reopens the question of whether this closes the door on regularising environmental violations or gives them a narrower but still real legal opening.
What is a post facto environmental clearance?
Definition: A post facto, or ex post facto, environmental clearance (EC) is an approval granted after a project has already commenced construction or operations, reversing the sequence the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime otherwise requires.
Underlying principle: India’s EIA regime rests on the precautionary principle, which requires ecological appraisal before construction begins rather than after damage may already be irreversible.
What is the difference between an Office Memorandum and a statutory notification?
Office Memorandum: An OM is an administrative instruction issued by a ministry or department. It does not carry the force of law.
Statutory notification: A notification is issued under authority granted by a statute, in this case the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and is published in the official Gazette, giving it legal force an OM lacks.
How has the Supreme Court’s position on retrospective clearances evolved?
Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): The Court held that mining projects requiring clearance could not commence before appraisal, calling retrospective clearances completely alien to environmental jurisprudence.
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (2020): The Court reiterated that ex post facto clearance undermines the precautionary principle by letting proponents commence activity first and seek approval later, though it imposed penalties instead of ordering closure for long operating units.
Electrosteel Steels Ltd v. Union of India (2021): The Court held that ex post facto clearances could be granted in exceptional circumstances to protect livelihoods and the economy, opening space for the OM that followed the same year.
Pahwa Plastics v. Dastak (2022): The Court took a more pragmatic approach, holding that closure is not always the right remedy where regulatory uncertainty existed and compliance remained achievable.
Vanashakti v. Union of India (May 2025 and November 2025): A Bench struck down both the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, ruling ex post facto clearances impermissible in any form. Following review petitions by the Centre and industry bodies, a three judge Bench recalled this ruling by a two to one majority six months later, holding it needed fresh adjudication.
29 July 2026 ruling: A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India quashed the 2021 OM but upheld the 2017 notification, holding that any future post facto clearance can only be granted through a statutory notification, not an administrative order.
What does the 29 July ruling establish?
Quashed instrument: The Court set aside the 2021 OM that had created a standing procedure for regularising violation cases, calling it a continuing or perpetual regime rather than a one time exception.
Retained instrument: The March 2017 notification, offering a one time six month disclosure window, was not invalidated.
Legal basis required: Any future post facto clearance mechanism must be issued as a statutory notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not as an OM.
Public interest test: The government must show that the public interest served is sufficiently compelling, that any relaxation is strictly necessary, and that environmental costs have been weighed against anticipated benefits, converting open ended discretion into a narrowly circumscribed exception.
Does the ruling protect the precautionary principle or launder violations into a fee?
Fig leaf reading: One reading holds that the distinction between an OM and a statutory notification is a procedural label rather than a substantive safeguard. This is because the government can still notify the same regularisation scheme through the correct instrument.
Amnesty analogy rejected: The Court reasoned that governments may frame environmental amnesty schemes the way they frame tax or building default amnesties. This is a comparison critics say cannot be transposed onto projects that cut into forests and floodplains. This is because ecological damage propagates through interconnected plant, animal, human and microbial systems rather than resetting to zero on payment of a fee.
Decriminalisation overlap: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, and its 2026 amendments removed imprisonment for environmental violations. This leaves only monetary penalties. So, now a regularised violation now costs a well capitalised developer a budgeted fine rather than a criminal risk.
Counter view: The opposing reading holds that the ruling is consistent with two decades of jurisprudence reading a healthy environment into the right to life, and that the recognised flexibility could legitimately apply to national defence projects, healthcare facilities in underserved areas, or connectivity in remote regions.
Scale of existing exceptions: More than 100 projects, including coal, iron and bauxite mines, a greenfield airport, distilleries, steel and cement plants, and hospitals, had already received ex post facto clearance under the 2017 to 2021 regime. This shows how large scale the exception has become in practice.
What are the challenges to enforcing the public interest test for post facto clearance?
Definition creep: Public interest is not statutorily defined for this purpose, leaving room for the term to be stretched to cover commercially driven projects as much as genuinely urgent public needs.
Monitoring capacity: State environmental authorities, expert appraisal committees and pollution boards have historically detected violations only after construction is complete, showing weak upfront monitoring that a narrower legal test alone will not fix.
Litigation burden: Every future statutory amnesty scheme will likely face fresh litigation testing whether it is genuinely narrowly tailored, adding years of uncertainty for project proponents and affected communities alike.
Weakened deterrence: With imprisonment removed under the Jan Vishwas amendments, monetary penalties alone may not deter developers who can treat the fine as a routine cost of doing business.
Climate exposure: Infrastructure regularised without adequate ecological assessment faces greater exposure to extreme weather events, as seen in monsoon damage to projects built without proper environmental safeguards.
Conclusion
The ruling ends open ended administrative regularisation under the 2021 OM, restoring the requirement that any future post facto clearance carry the force of a statutory notification tested against public interest, necessity and proportionality. It does not resolve whether that test can hold against a decriminalised penalty regime in which environmental violation carries only a monetary cost. The government’s next statutory amnesty scheme, if it frames one, will show whether this order narrows the exception in practice or simply relabels the same regularisation regime in more careful legal language.
Back2Basics:
EIA Notification, 2006
Issuing authority: Notified in 2006 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Core requirement: Mandates prior environmental clearance before construction or expansion begins for listed categories of projects such as mining, thermal power and infrastructure.
Categorisation: Projects fall into Category A, needing central level clearance, and Category B, needing state level clearance through State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.
Process stages: Screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal precede the grant of clearance.
Subsequent dilution: A March 2017 notification and a July 2021 OM introduced routes for post facto clearance, which the Supreme Court has since narrowed.
The precautionary principle:
It is a core rule in environmental law requiring authorities to take preventive action against serious or irreversible environmental harm, even when there is no full scientific certainty.
Key aspects include shifting the burden of proof to project developers, prioritizing safety over delay, and focusing on proactive governance.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The landmark ruling where the Supreme Court formally integrated the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle into Indian jurisprudence.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?
Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework in India. The article examines EIA implementation in light of the precautionary principle established in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996).
The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the executive a majority in the CEC selection committee. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.
What is the CEC Selection Committee under the 2023 Act?
The Act provides for a three-member selection committee comprising:
Prime Minister (Chairperson)
Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha
What changed?
The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister.
This gives the executive two out of three votes, with the Opposition holding one.
What is the Anoop Baranwal Judgment (2023)?
Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Held that until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising:
Prime Minister
Leader of the Opposition
Chief Justice of India
The Court stressed that the Election Commission must be independent, neutral, and free from executive control.
Centre’s Arguments
Parliament is competent to decide the appointment process.
The Prime Minister’s office carries constitutional trust.
Courts should not presume bad faith by constitutional authorities.
Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister is within Parliament’s legislative powers.
Supreme Court’s Concerns
The committee lacks a neutral member.
A 2:1 executive majority may affect the perception of independence.
Appointments should not only be fair but also appear to be fair.
[2017] Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India: 1.The ECI is currently a five-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and four Election Commissioners. 2.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the final authority that decides the election schedule for general elections. 3.The ECI is the designated authority to resolve disputes relating to splits or mergers of recognized political parties. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has approved a package of regulatory reforms covering investment norms, capital structure, policyholder protection and intermediary accountability. The reform bundle operationalises the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha Act, 2025, which raised the foreign investment ceiling in insurers from 74% to 100%. It tests whether liberalisation and protection can be built in parallel rather than protection following liberalisation with a lag.
Why has IRDAI introduced this reform package now?
Legislative trigger: The Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025 amended insurance laws and raised the foreign investment ceiling in insurers to 100%, up from 74%.
Implementation gap: The higher FDI ceiling needed a regulatory framework for capital infusion, corporate restructuring and share transfer to become operational.
Statutory mandate: The SBSR Act inserted Section 16A into the IRDA Act, 1999. This created the legal basis for the Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund, which needed dedicated regulations to function.
Sequencing choice: The IRDAI board cleared amendments to five sets of regulations in a single meeting. Capital reform and protection reform were treated as one package, not as separate tracks.
What liberalisation has been extended to insurers?
Investment norms: Amendments to the actuarial, finance and investment regulations give insurers greater flexibility in deploying funds.
Capital structure: Amended registration and capital structure regulations create a facilitative framework for capital infusion.
Corporate restructuring: The same regulations streamline provisions for amalgamation of insurers.
Share transfer: Procedures governing transfer of shares have been simplified. This eases entry and exit for investors.
Actuarial oversight: The amendments strengthen actuarial and financial governance standards even as operational flexibility increases.
How has the reform package sought to institutionalise policyholder protection?
Statutory fund: The Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund Regulations, 2026 operationalise the PEPF created under Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999.
Awareness mandate: The fund is tasked with promoting insurance awareness and literacy.
Grievance redressal: The regulations direct the fund to strengthen mechanisms for resolving policyholder grievances.
Unclaimed amounts: The fund is required to trace and recover unclaimed insurance amounts on behalf of policyholders and beneficiaries.
Technology mandate: The fund is expected to use technology to improve policyholder-facing services.
How does the intermediary and enforcement architecture fix accountability gaps in distribution?
Salesperson tagging: Every insurance proposal, policy and certificate of insurance must now carry the identity of the authorised salesperson who sold it.
Traceability: Tagging makes individual accountability for mis-selling traceable at the point of sale.
Registration reform: Intermediaries move from periodic renewal to perpetual registration, backed by an annual fee.
Compliance alignment: The revised intermediary framework aligns with the SBSR Act and with Foreign Investment Rules.
Penalty framework: The IRDAI (Manner and Procedure for Imposition of Penalties) Regulations, 2026 lay down a structured process of show-cause notices and reasoned orders under the Insurance Act, 1938 and the IRDAI Act, 1999.
Can capital liberalisation and policyholder protection be pursued at the same pace, or does one inherently lag the other?
Structural pairing: IRDAI bundled capital-side liberalisation with protection-side regulation in the same board meeting. The two are treated as inseparable, not sequential.
Underlying risk: Liberalised investment norms and eased capital infusion widen the pool of entities and products in the market. This same expansion has historically outpaced grievance redressal capacity.
Accountability lag: Salesperson tagging and the penalty framework are enforcement tools. Both depend on detection and adjudication capacity, which typically builds slower than capital inflow.
Fund versus enforcement: The PEPF is an awareness and recovery mechanism, not a supervisory one. It does not by itself catch mis-selling before it occurs.
Open question: Whether accountability infrastructure can scale at the same rate as the capital base, once 100% FDI is fully absorbed, remains untested.
What do early market signals suggest about the credibility of this dual-track reform?
FDI uptake: Two insurers, one life and one general, have already raised foreign shareholding beyond the earlier 74% ceiling.
New entry: ProTec General Insurance Ltd received a Certificate of Registration, the fourth new registration of calendar year 2026.
Composition of entry: The four 2026 registrations span two general insurers, one health insurer and one reinsurer. This indicates diversified rather than concentrated investor interest.
Regulator’s reading: IRDAI has framed the FDI uptake as a signal of investor confidence and of India’s attractiveness as a long-term investment destination.
Unresolved test: Investor confidence confirms the liberalisation track is working. It does not yet confirm the protection track, since the PEPF and the penalty framework are too new to have generated measurable outcomes.
Conclusion
IRDAI’s reform package treats capital liberalisation and policyholder protection as a single, simultaneous exercise rather than a sequence, matching the SBSR Act’s 100% FDI opening with a statutory protection fund, salesperson-level traceability and a codified penalty process. Early investor response confirms the liberalisation track is working. Whether the protection track can scale at the same speed as capital inflow, particularly by detecting mis-selling before it happens rather than compensating for it afterward, is not yet tested.
Back2Basics:
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)
Governing Act: IRDAI is governed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, along with the Insurance Act, 1938 and the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972.
Jurisdiction: IRDAI performs both economic regulation (tariffs, solvency margins) and technical regulation (reserving norms, actuarial standards) for insurers, an integrated single-regulator model.
Origin: IRDAI was established on the recommendation of the R.N. Malhotra Committee on comprehensive reforms of the insurance sector, which predates IRDAI’s own creation.
Grievance route: The Insurance Ombudsman handles policyholder disputes; its award is binding on the insurer but not the policyholder, who can still approach a Consumer Commission.
Appellate route: Appeals against IRDAI orders lie before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).
What is the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025?
What it is: The Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025 (SBSR Act) is the legislative vehicle through which Parliament amended India’s insurance laws, including the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
What it introduced: The SBSR Act introduced Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999, establishing the statutory basis for the Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2015] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.
Linkage: The question asks what independence and autonomy regulatory institutions need to achieve their objectives. IRDAI’s new penalty and enforcement regulations attempt to build exactly this kind of structured, autonomous regulatory credibility.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 on 29 July 2026, in the absence of most Opposition members who staged a walkout. The Bill extends criminal punishment for disrespecting national symbols to the National Song, Vande Mataram, placing it on the same legal footing as the National Anthem for the first time since the original 1971 law.
What does the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 change?
Original law: The Bill amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises insults to the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem.
New provision: The amendment extends criminal punishment to acts of obstruction or disturbance during the singing of the National Song, Vande Mataram.
Penalty: Intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song, or causing disturbance to an assembly singing it, will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both.
Legislative path: The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai and will now go to the Lok Sabha for consideration and passage.
What is the historical background to Vande Mataram’s status?
Origin: Vande Mataram was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in 1875, but only two stanzas were adopted as the National Song.
Adoption decision: Congress leader Jawaharlal Nehru limited the National Song to two stanzas in 1937, years before he became independent India’s first Prime Minister.
Constituent Assembly reference: On 24 January 1950, Rajendra Prasad told the Constituent Assembly that Vande Mataram should be honoured on par with Jana Gana Mana, the National Anthem.
What was the political dispute around the Bill’s passage?
Government framing: Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said the Bill represents “India’s soul, national awareness, and cultural heritage” and accused the Congress of engaging in appeasement politics by opposing it.
Opposition’s walkout reason: Nearly all Opposition members walked out demanding Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on the police action against students protesting paper leaks at Jantar Mantar, rather than opposing the Bill’s substance.
Cross-party support noted: The Aam Aadmi Party’s Sanjay Singh said his party supports the Bill while also demanding a law against insulting the National Anthem and the Tricolour.
Conclusion
The Rajya Sabha has passed the Bill giving Vande Mataram the same criminal protection as the National Anthem, with the Lok Sabha’s consideration as the next legislative step. The Opposition’s walkout centred on demanding accountability for the police action against student protesters rather than opposing the Bill on its merits.
Back2Basics:
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971
Enactment: The original Act was passed in 1971 to penalise insults to the National Flag, the Constitution of India, and the National Anthem.
Scope: It covers acts such as burning, mutilating or defacing the National Flag, and preventing or disturbing the singing of the National Anthem.
Amendment history: The Act has been amended before, including through the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2005, to add flag code violations.
The Supreme Court on 29 July 2026 quashed, with prospective effect, the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that allowed ex post facto environmental clearances for projects built without prior approval. It held that the government cannot alter the mandatory environmental clearance regime through a mere administrative instruction. The ruling closes a route that had let project proponents regularise unauthorised construction through a recurring “amnesty,” while leaving open a narrow exception issued through proper notification.
What did the 2021 Office Memorandum allow, and why did the court strike it down?
What the OM did: The 2021 OM created a standard operating procedure allowing perpetual, recurring ex post facto environmental clearance for projects undertaken without prior environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Why it failed the legal test: The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, held that the OM was “an administrative order” that “envisages a perpetual regime” and “supplants an earlier delegated legislation through an administrative instruction, which is impermissible in law.”
No selection criteria: The OM applied indiscriminately to all permissible projects without laying down an intelligible differentia connecting selection to “supervening public interest,” making it disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Weakened deterrence: The decriminalisation of the offence of breaching the prior clearance regime through the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 compounded the problem, since violators earlier faced up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, before the offence became a civil liability.
What can the government still do to grant retrospective clearance?
Narrow exception preserved: The Court held the Centre retains power under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to issue an appropriate, narrowly tailored amnesty notification in supervening public interest, as an exception to the 2006 notification, but not through an administrative memorandum.
Selection requirement: Any future amnesty scheme must make a distinct, reasoned selection of projects, tested against proportionality and public interest, rather than covering all non-compliant projects uniformly.
Accountability demand: The Court ordered that future amnesty schemes must provide effective deterrent measures against individual public servants, including disciplinary action and personal liability, wherever the state or its own instrumentalities violate the prior clearance regime.
What happens to projects that already received clearance under the quashed OM?
Prospective effect only: The Court quashed the 2021 OM prospectively, to avoid disrupting ongoing projects including the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital building in Odisha, the Centre of Excellence for Cancer Diseases in Tamil Nadu, Vijayapura Airport in Karnataka, and various medical colleges, slum rehabilitation and irrigation projects.
Existing clearances remain valid: Retrospective clearances already granted under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM remain valid unless individually challenged in accordance with law.
Litigation history: The ruling follows a back-and-forth: a May 2025 Division Bench judgment called such clearances a “gross illegality,” a November 2025 larger Bench recalled that ruling citing the “devastating effect” on public projects worth thousands of crores, and the present July 2026 judgment on review petitions restores the stricter position on the OM specifically.
Does closing the OM route resolve the tension between environmental compliance and project continuity?
Unresolved incentive: Because existing ex post facto clearances remain valid unless individually challenged, project proponents that already built without clearance retain the benefit of past regularisation, even as the route for future violators is closed.
Enforcement gap remains: With the 2023 Jan Vishwas Act having decriminalised breaches of the prior clearance regime, the deterrent effect of closing the administrative amnesty route depends on how strictly future violations are now penalised as civil liabilities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has closed the administrative route for open-ended retrospective environmental clearance while preserving a narrow, notification-based exception for genuine public interest cases. Whether this actually curbs future violations depends on how strictly the Centre applies the “narrowly tailored” and “intelligible differentia” tests the Court has now set, and whether civil penalties under the Jan Vishwas Act carry enough deterrent weight.
Back2Basics:
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Enactment: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, giving the Central government overarching powers to protect and improve the environment.
EIA notification: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under Section 3 of this Act, mandates prior environmental clearance for specified categories of projects before construction begins.
Jan Vishwas Act, 2023: This Act decriminalised minor offences across 42 laws, including converting the penalty for breaching the prior environmental clearance requirement from imprisonment to a civil liability.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2020]How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?
Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and the legal requirements governing environmental clearances. The article builds on the PYQ by analysing the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate open-ended ex post facto environmental clearances, reinforcing prior approval as the cornerstone of the EIA regime.
