UPSC CSE Current Affairs — 24 October 2026

The Indian government and LIC are divesting a combined 60.72% stake in IDBI Bank to Canada-based Fairfax Group for ₹52,878 crore at ₹81 per share. This price exceeds the SEBI-mandated fair valuation benchmark of ₹75.99 per share set by registered valuers. The deal triggers a mandatory open offer under SEBI's takeover code, requiring Fairfax to make a public offer to acquire an additional 26% stake from minority shareholders at the same acquisition price.

This transaction is one of India's largest privatisation exercises since independence and involves several layered regulatory mechanisms that examiners love to test.

**Privatisation and Strategic Disinvestment:** IDBI Bank has been on the government's strategic disinvestment list since 2021. Unlike minority stake sales, strategic disinvestment transfers management control — meaning the government and LIC together relinquish their majority holding and operational control to a private buyer.

**SEBI Takeover Code (SAST Regulations, 2011):** Whenever an acquirer crosses 25% shareholding in a listed company, SEBI's Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers (SAST) Regulations mandate an open offer for at least 26% of total shares from public shareholders at a price no lower than the negotiated acquisition price. Here, Fairfax acquiring 60.72% automatically triggers this obligation.

**Valuation Floor:** SEBI requires an independent registered valuer to set a benchmark price. The ₹75.99 floor was this valuation; the ₹81 deal price represents a ~6.6% premium, protecting minority shareholders.

**Banking Sector Implication:** Post-acquisition, IDBI Bank transitions from a public sector bank to a private bank under RBI's licensing framework. Existing depositors' FDs remain protected under the DICGC insurance cover of ₹5 lakh per depositor. The change in ownership does not extinguish depositor rights or contract terms.

**Tax Angle:** Capital gains tax applies to the government and LIC on the disinvestment proceeds — a recurring exam theme on how sovereign transactions interact with taxation.

The PIB factsheet summarises India's agricultural transformation under recent policy: record foodgrain production exceeding 330 million tonnes, MSP hikes across 14 kharif and 6 rabi crops, PM-KISAN delivering ₹6,000 annually to over 11 crore farmers, and PM Fasal Bima Yojana covering cropped area with subsidised premiums. Allied sectors—fisheries, animal husbandry, dairying—have received dedicated missions with expanded credit flows through Kisan Credit Cards, targeting doubling farm income.

India's agricultural policy rests on four interlocking pillars: price support (MSP), income support (PM-KISAN), risk mitigation (PMFBY), and credit access (KCC). Understanding how these interact is essential for both UPSC and NABARD aspirants.

Minimum Support Price (MSP) is announced by Ccabinet on the recommendation of CACP (Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices), covering 23 crops. The 'A2+FL' formula includes actual paid-out costs plus imputed value of family labour, while the C2 formula additionally includes imputed rent and interest on owned capital — the distinction between these two cost formulae is a frequent exam trap.

PM-KISAN (Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi), launched in February 2019, provides ₹6,000 per year in three equal instalments of ₹2,000 directly to landholding farmer families. The scheme excludes institutional landholders and government employees above a salary threshold.

PM Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), launched 2016, replaced NAIS and MNAIS. Premium rates are capped at 2% for kharif, 1.5% for rabi food and oilseeds, and 5% for annual commercial/horticultural crops. The government pays the balance premium. It operates on an actuarial premium model unlike the flat-rate earlier schemes.

Kisan Credit Card (KCC), originally introduced in 1998, provides short-term credit for crop cultivation, post-harvest expenses, and allied activities. The scheme was extended to fishermen and animal husbandry farmers. Credit limit up to ₹3 lakh is eligible for interest subvention under the Interest Subvention Scheme.

Under the allied sector, PM Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) with an outlay of ₹20,050 crore targets doubling fish production to 22 million metric tonnes by 2024-25, while the Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund (AHIDF) of ₹15,000 crore supports private investment in dairy and meat processing infrastructure.

The Financial Stability and Development Council met under Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to review India's macro-financial stability amid rising geopolitical tensions and global economic uncertainty. The meeting assessed risks to the financial system, discussed inter-regulatory coordination, and reviewed the functioning of financial sector regulators including RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, PFRDA, and IBBI. The council examined global spillover risks and steps to safeguard domestic financial markets and credit conditions.

The Financial Stability and Development Council (FSDC) is India's apex-level body for macro-prudential oversight and financial sector coordination. Established in 2010 on the recommendation of the Raghuram Rajan Committee, FSDC operates without a statutory basis — it was set up by a government executive order, which is itself a recurring exam distractor. The Finance Minister chairs it, not the RBI Governor, though the RBI Governor is a member alongside heads of SEBI, IRDAI, PFRDA, and IBBI.

FSDC serves two interlocking purposes: financial stability (monitoring systemic risk across sectors) and financial development (deepening markets, expanding access). Its sub-committee, chaired by the RBI Governor, handles operational coordination.

The significance of this meeting lies in the external context: geopolitical disruptions — rising tariff barriers, supply chain fragmentation, and capital flow volatility — can transmit shocks to India's financial system through exchange rate pressure, portfolio outflows, and tightening of external credit. FSDC meetings assess whether India's regulatory perimeter is adequate to absorb such shocks.

For exam purposes, the key conceptual link is between macro-prudential policy and systemic risk — FSDC is the institutional expression of this link in India. It bridges monetary policy (RBI), securities markets (SEBI), insurance (IRDAI), pensions (PFRDA), and insolvency (IBBI) under a single inter-regulatory forum. This coordination architecture is what examiners test, not just the name of the body.

CBDT has clarified that compensation paid to employees under the BSNL and MTNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which covers public sector undertaking VRS payouts, and cannot be claimed under Section 10(10B), which applies to retrenchment compensation. The distinction matters because each section carries different exemption conditions, eligibility criteria, and tax treatment, affecting thousands of PSU employees who opted for early retirement under the 2019 scheme.

This CBDT clarification resolves a classification dispute that directly affects the tax liability of BSNL and MTNL employees who accepted VRS in 2019. Understanding why the distinction matters requires knowing what each section covers.

Section 10(10B) exempts retrenchment compensation paid under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It applies when an employer terminates an employee involuntarily — the employee did not choose to leave. The exemption ceiling is the lower of actual compensation, three months' average salary per completed year of service, or ₹5 lakh.

Section 10(10C) exempts VRS compensation received by employees of specified public sector companies, statutory corporations, and other entities notified by the government. The exemption is capped at ₹5 lakh over a lifetime across all employers. Crucially, it applies only when the employee voluntarily opts for retirement under a scheme that meets prescribed conditions (the employee must be 40+ years old or have completed 10 years of service; the scheme cannot result in replacement of the post).

BSNL and MTNL are Central Government PSUs. Their 2019 VRS was a voluntary scheme, not retrenchment. CBDT's clarification therefore correctly routes the exemption to 10(10C). The practical implication: employees cannot stack both exemptions, and the ₹5 lakh lifetime cap under 10(10C) applies. Any excess over ₹5 lakh remains taxable as salary income. For exam purposes, the key takeaway is the structural difference between these two exemption heads and the nature of PSU employment that triggers 10(10C).

The Bombay High Court quashed fresh income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against a company that had already undergone resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court held that once an insolvency resolution plan is approved, the company cannot be reassessed for pre-resolution tax periods, even if the Enforcement Directorate supplies new information. The IBC's moratorium and clean-slate principle shield the resolved company from such proceedings.

This ruling sits at the intersection of two powerful statutes: the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The core principle at stake is the 'clean-slate doctrine' embedded in IBC Section 31 — once the National Company Law Tribunal approves a resolution plan, the successful resolution applicant takes over a company free of all prior liabilities not expressly included in the plan. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC (2021), holding that claims not part of the approved plan are extinguished.

The Income Tax department frequently attempts to reopen assessments under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that fresh information — here from the ED — constitutes 'reason to believe' income has escaped assessment. The Bombay HC rejected this by affirming that the IBC overrides the Income Tax Act under the non-obstante clause (Section 238 of IBC), which states IBC shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law.

The moratorium under IBC Section 14 halts all proceedings against the corporate debtor during the resolution process, and the approved plan crystallises this protection permanently for pre-resolution dues. Even a law-enforcement agency's inputs cannot revive tax liability that was extinguished by the NCLT-approved plan. This ruling reinforces the primacy of IBC over sector-specific statutes like the Income Tax Act, a principle the examiner tests repeatedly.

Atal Vayo Abhyuday Yojana (AVYAY), formerly known as the National Action Plan for Senior Citizens, is India's umbrella scheme for elderly welfare under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. It consolidates multiple sub-schemes including IGNOAPS, IGNDPS, Rashtriya Vayoshri Yojana, and Senior Care Ageing Growth Engine (SAGE). The scheme focuses on financial security, healthcare, shelter, and skill development for senior citizens, targeting those above 60 years, with special attention to BPL elderly populations.

AVYAY represents India's policy response to a demographic challenge: the elderly population (60+) is projected to reach 347 million by 2050, creating massive demand for integrated care systems. The scheme was restructured under a single umbrella to improve convergence and eliminate duplication across earlier fragmented schemes.

Key sub-components carry distinct exam-testable features. Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS) provides ₹200/month for those aged 60-79 and ₹500/month for those 80+ from BPL households. Rashtriya Vayoshri Yojana provides physical aids and assisted-living devices to senior citizens from BPL categories, implemented through ALIMCO (Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India). The SAGE (Senior Care Ageing Growth Engine) portal, launched in 2021, acts as a 'one-stop shop' connecting elderly citizens to verified start-up products and services.

The scheme sits at the intersection of social security, financial inclusion, and health policy — making it relevant across UPSC (governance and welfare delivery), NABARD (rural elderly and BPL targeting), and RBI (financial security as a financial inclusion angle). The implementing ministry — Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment — is a recurring anchor in MCQs. Examiners routinely test whether aspirants can distinguish between sub-scheme parameters: pension amounts, age thresholds, and implementing agencies.