UPSC CSE Current Affairs — 13 August 2026

India's financial inclusion drive, anchored by Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) launched on August 28, 2014, has enrolled over 53 crore beneficiaries by 2024, with deposits exceeding ₹2.3 lakh crore. Over 55% of Jan Dhan accounts belong to women, and 67% are in rural or semi-urban areas. The scheme provides zero-balance accounts, RuPay debit cards, ₹2 lakh accident insurance, and ₹30,000 life cover, forming India's foundational JAM Trinity infrastructure.

Financial inclusion means ensuring every individual and household has access to useful and affordable financial products and services — including transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance — delivered in a responsible and sustainable way. In India, the policy architecture rests on three pillars: the JAM Trinity (Jan Dhan accounts + Aadhaar + Mobile), the Business Correspondent (BC) model for last-mile delivery, and the Priority Sector Lending (PSL) framework mandating banks to direct 40% of Adjusted Net Bank Credit (ANBC) toward underserved sectors.

PMJDY is the world's largest financial inclusion programme, recognised by the Guinness World Records. It operationalises the RBI's financial inclusion mandate through commercial banks, RRBs, and cooperative banks. The scheme's Overdraft (OD) facility — up to ₹10,000 per account — acts as a micro-credit lifeline. NABARD complements this through SHG-Bank Linkage Programme (SHG-BLP) and MUDRA Yojana, targeting agricultural and rural credit gaps.

For RBI, financial inclusion connects to Priority Sector targets, BC regulation, and Payments Bank licensing. For NABARD, it links to rural credit flow, RIDF, and SHG loan limits under DAY-NRLM. For UPSC, it frames welfare delivery, DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer), and governance reform. The examiner tests whether the aspirant can distinguish scheme parameters, implementing agencies, and underlying policy rationale — not just scheme names.

India's agriculture sector, employing over 54% of the workforce, has seen transformative policy interventions across crop science, rural credit, and allied sectors. Key schemes include PM-KISAN (₹6,000/year direct transfer), PM Fasal Bima Yojana (crop insurance), and NABARD-led rural credit programs. Allied sectors — animal husbandry, fisheries, and horticulture — now receive dedicated missions. MSP revisions, PM-KUSUM for solar irrigation, and the Agricultural Infrastructure Fund (₹1 lakh crore) define the current policy architecture reshaping Indian farming.

Indian agriculture policy operates across three interlocking layers: income support, risk mitigation, and infrastructure creation.

Income support is anchored by PM-KISAN (Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi), launched in February 2019, which transfers ₹6,000 per year in three equal installments of ₹2,000 directly to landholding farmers. Over 11 crore farmers are registered. This is a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare.

Risk mitigation works through PM Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), where farmers pay a premium of maximum 2% for Kharif crops, 1.5% for Rabi crops, and 5% for commercial/horticultural crops. The balance premium is shared equally by the Centre and States.

Infrastructure creation is channeled through the Agricultural Infrastructure Fund (AIF) — a ₹1 lakh crore financing facility for post-harvest management and agri-logistics. NABARD plays a central role in rural credit via Kisan Credit Card (KCC), short-term cooperative credit, and refinancing state cooperative banks.

Allied sectors are addressed through dedicated missions: PM Matsya Sampada Yojana (fisheries, ₹20,050 crore), National Animal Disease Control Programme (NADCP), and the National Horticulture Mission.

For NABARD aspirants, the exact financial outlays, premium percentages, installment structures, and implementing ministries are the most frequently blanked-out data points. For UPSC aspirants, the policy rationale — food security, farmer income doubling, and climate resilience — is the core angle.

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, providing one-third reservation for women in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, failed to pass in Lok Sabha. The Bill required a special majority under Article 368 — two-thirds of members present and voting, plus majority of total membership. Linked to the delimitation exercise for implementation, the Bill's failure revives debate on the 108th Amendment Bill introduced in 2008 and the Women's Reservation Act 2023, which itself awaits delimitation before activation.

Women's reservation in Parliament has a tortured legislative history. The first serious attempt was the 81st Constitutional Amendment Bill in 1996 under the Deve Gowda government. Successive efforts — the 84th Amendment Bill (1998), 85th (1999), and 108th Amendment Bill (2008, passed in Rajya Sabha but lapsed in Lok Sabha) — all failed. The breakthrough appeared to come with the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 — the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam — which inserted Articles 330A and 332A, reserving one-third seats for women in Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and Delhi Assembly. Critically, that Act has a deferred commencement clause: reservation activates only after the first delimitation exercise conducted after the Act's commencement and after a census. This structural delay is the constitutional trap the examiner loves to test. The now-failed 131st Amendment Bill was apparently a separate or successor attempt — its failure resets the clock. For CLAT PG, the key doctrinal questions are: (1) What special majority is required under Article 368 for constitutional amendments affecting representation? (2) Can Parliament create a class-within-a-class reservation for women within already reserved SC/ST seats — permissible under Articles 15(3) and 16? (3) Does the deferred commencement constitute a colourable exercise of power? For UPSC CSE, the factual chain — Article numbers, amendment numbers, years, and the delimitation-census linkage — is the core testable territory.

The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, which sought to restructure delimitation of parliamentary constituencies, was defeated on the floor of the Lok Sabha — the first constitutional amendment bill brought by the current Union Government to fail there. It could not secure the mandatory two-thirds majority of members present and voting, as required under Article 368. The defeat marks a significant parliamentary moment and raises fresh questions about the constitutional mechanics of amending delimitation provisions.

Article 368 of the Constitution lays down the procedure for constitutional amendments. A constitutional amendment bill must be passed in each House of Parliament by a special majority — a majority of the total membership of that House AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. The 131st Amendment Bill's defeat in Lok Sabha is exam-critical because it tests aspirants on the exact mechanics of Article 368 and the distinction between ordinary bills (simple majority), constitutional amendment bills (special majority), and certain amendments that additionally require ratification by at least half the State Legislatures (e.g., those affecting federal provisions like Article 368 itself, the representation of States in Parliament, Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, etc.).

Delimitation — the redrawing of constituency boundaries — is governed by Article 82 (after each census) and Article 170 (for State Assemblies). A Delimitation Commission is constituted under the Delimitation Act. There have been four Delimitation Commissions: 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002 (whose orders came into effect in 2008). The current controversy centres on whether delimitation post-2026 (after the 2021 census) should be conducted and whether representation of southern States, which have better implemented population control policies, should be protected.

The failure of this bill is constitutionally significant because it is the first instance of a government-brought constitutional amendment bill falling in Lok Sabha, testing the structural safeguard that Article 368's supermajority requirement provides against majoritarian overreach.

Union Minister Durgadas Uikey informed Rajya Sabha that PM Narendra Modi launched Pradhan Mantri Janjatiya Unnat Gram Abhiyan (PM-JUGA) to uplift tribal communities in villages with significant Scheduled Tribe populations. The scheme targets Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) and tribal-majority gram panchayats. It aims to saturate these villages with government welfare schemes across health, education, livelihood, and infrastructure, converging multiple central programmes under one coordinated tribal development framework.

PM-JUGA (Pradhan Mantri Janjatiya Unnat Gram Abhiyan) is a convergence-based tribal development scheme launched in 2024. Its core design principle is scheme saturation — rather than creating parallel delivery silos, PM-JUGA maps all existing central government schemes (PM Awas Yojana, PM Jan Dhan, Jal Jeevan Mission, Ayushman Bharat, etc.) and ensures every eligible tribal household in covered villages actually receives those entitlements.

The scheme covers approximately 63,000 villages across 549 districts in 30 states and union territories where Scheduled Tribes constitute a significant share of the population. Within these, Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) — the most marginalised sub-group of STs — receive prioritised coverage.

The Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal implementing ministry. PM-JUGA is distinct from the earlier PM PVTG Development Mission (2023 Budget) which allocated ₹15,000 crore specifically for PVTGs; PM-JUGA is broader in scope and uses convergence rather than fresh allocation as its primary tool.

For UPSC aspirants, PM-JUGA connects to governance questions on tribal welfare delivery, Fifth Schedule areas, and the distinction between welfare saturation and scheme creation. For NABARD aspirants, rural credit penetration and SHG linkages in tribal belts are directly relevant dimensions of this scheme.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman delivered the keynote at a seminar on the New Development Bank's role in mobilising private capital in member countries, held in Jaipur. The NDB, established by BRICS nations in 2015, focuses on infrastructure and sustainable development financing. The seminar highlighted NDB's evolving mandate to crowd in private investment alongside public funding, a critical lever for emerging economies like India seeking infrastructure financing without balance-of-payments pressure.

The New Development Bank (NDB) was established in 2015 under the Fortaleza Agreement (signed July 2014) by the five original BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — with headquarters in Shanghai, China. India holds a significant founding stake and hosts the NDB's regional office in New Delhi's India Habitat Centre area. The bank's authorised capital is $100 billion, and it began operations with an initial subscribed capital of $50 billion.

The seminar's theme — mobilising private capital — reflects a broader global shift called 'blended finance,' where multilateral development banks (MDBs) use public or concessional funds to de-risk projects and attract private investors. This is crucial for India's infrastructure gap, estimated at trillions of dollars over the coming decade.

For exam purposes, the NDB is distinct from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), also China-associated but separate in membership and mandate. NDB's presidency rotates: K.V. Kamath (India) was the first President; Marcos Troyjo (Brazil) succeeded; Dilma Rousseff (Brazil) is the current President. The NDB expanded membership to include Bangladesh, Egypt, UAE, Uruguay, and Ethiopia — moving beyond the original BRICS five. This expansion is exam-testable because it changes the 'founding vs. current members' distinction frequently used in MCQ distractors.