UPSC CSE Current Affairs — 10 September 2026

The Supreme Court has posted the marital rape exception challenge for final hearing, while also addressing an interim question: can a husband be prosecuted for rape of his wife before the court decides the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC? The bench indicated that prosecution may proceed even pending the constitutional verdict. Exception 2 shields a husband from rape charges unless the wife is under fifteen years of age, a provision challenged under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (now Exception 2 to Section 63 BNS) exempts a husband from rape prosecution if his wife is above fifteen years of age. The provision originates from Victorian-era common law, specifically Matthew Hale's presumption that a wife gives irrevocable consent to intercourse upon marriage. Constitutionally, the challenge rests on three pillars. First, Article 14 — the classification of married women as a separate class incapable of being raped by their husband is argued to be arbitrary and without intelligible differentia having rational nexus to the object of the law. Second, Article 19(1)(a) and 21 — bodily autonomy, sexual autonomy, and dignity are recognised fundamental rights; the exception overrides a married woman's right to say no, violating her personhood. Third, Article 21 jurisprudence post-Puttaswamy (2017) treats privacy, including decisional and bodily privacy, as a fundamental right. The Delhi High Court had delivered a split verdict in 2022 — Justice Rajiv Shakdher held the exception unconstitutional; Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld it. The matter then went to the Supreme Court. The procedural question now settled — prosecution can proceed even before the constitutional validity is finally decided — is itself significant because it prevents the exception from functioning as a litigation shield. The BNS 2023 retains the exception, making the SC ruling prospectively critical for the new code as well.

The Supreme Court raised a pointed procedural question: can a husband be prosecuted for raping his wife when the constitutional validity of the marital rape exception under IPC Section 375 is itself pending adjudication? The court is simultaneously hearing challenges to Exception 2 of Section 375, which exempts husbands from rape charges. This creates a legal paradox — prosecutions proceed under a law whose foundational exception may be struck down or upheld, leaving accused and victims in constitutional limbo.

Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (now mirrored in BNS Section 63) states that sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. This exception originated in colonial-era law rooted in the 'implied consent' theory attributed to Sir Matthew Hale (1736), which held that marriage constitutes irrevocable consent to intercourse.

The constitutional challenge tests this exception against Articles 14 (equality before law), 19(1)(a) (dignity and autonomy), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty including bodily integrity). The Kerala High Court in 2021 and the Delhi High Court in 2022 delivered split verdicts — with one Delhi judge holding the exception unconstitutional and another upholding it — forcing Supreme Court intervention.

The doctrinal tension is between legislative policy (Parliament's deliberate retention of the exception despite the 172nd Law Commission Report recommending criminalisation) and constitutional morality (the court's role in striking down provisions that violate fundamental rights even if enacted by Parliament).

The SC's current question is procedurally significant: it implicates the doctrine of 'presumption of constitutionality.' Until a provision is struck down, it is valid law; prosecutions launched before a ruling may face retrospective uncertainty. This also intersects with Article 20(1) — protection against ex post facto laws — if the exception is ultimately read down rather than struck down entirely.

For CLAT PG, the key doctrinal layers are: the right to bodily integrity under Article 21 (Suchita Srivastava, 2009), the equality dimension under Article 14, and the court's power of judicial review of legislation.

Union Budget 2026-27 directs significant allocations toward Chhattisgarh, focusing on tribal welfare, rural connectivity, agricultural credit, and food security. Key interventions include expansion of PMGSY road coverage to unconnected habitations, enhanced Kisan Credit Card limits, PM Awas Yojana housing targets, and strengthened PDS access for Scheduled Tribe populations. The budget also emphasises MGNREGS wage support and PM-KISAN direct benefit transfers as twin pillars of rural income stabilisation in one of India's most resource-rich but socio-economically lagging states.

Chhattisgarh presents a structural paradox in Indian development: it is mineral-rich and forest-dense, yet ranks among the lowest states on human development indicators, with a large Scheduled Tribe population historically underserved by formal finance and welfare delivery. The Union Budget's state-specific focus addresses this through convergence of multiple centrally sponsored schemes.

PMGSY (Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana) is the all-weather rural road connectivity scheme — a perennial exam favourite — now extended to cover smaller habitations. The enhanced Kisan Credit Card (KCC) limit (raised to ₹5 lakh in Budget 2025-26) enables short-term agricultural credit access, directly relevant to RBI's priority sector lending norms and NABARD's refinancing role.

PM Awas Yojana (Grameen) provides pucca housing to rural BPL households, with Chhattisgarh's tribal districts receiving priority. PM-KISAN delivers ₹6,000/year in three instalments directly to farmer beneficiaries — a Direct Benefit Transfer mechanism that bypasses intermediaries. MGNREGS guarantees 100 days of unskilled wage employment per rural household annually.

For aspirants, the key policy logic is convergence: roads enable market access, credit enables investment, housing delivers dignity, and income support ensures consumption floors. Together, these schemes operationalise India's inclusive growth architecture in aspirational districts. NABARD plays a critical backend role by refinancing rural credit and supporting infrastructure investment in tribal and backward regions.

India has endorsed the 'Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security,' a multilateral initiative to influence the development of 6G telecommunications standards. The endorsement, coordinated through the Department of Telecommunications, positions India as a proactive stakeholder in shaping 6G architecture, security frameworks, and spectrum policy before commercial deployment. India's participation reflects its Bharat 6G Vision, launched in 2023, which targets indigenous 6G development and aims to make India a leading contributor to global 6G standard-setting bodies by 2030.

6G, the sixth generation of wireless technology, is expected to succeed 5G with speeds potentially 100 times faster, near-zero latency, and integration of sensing, communication, and AI at the network layer. Unlike previous generations where standards were largely shaped by a handful of technologically advanced nations and corporations, 6G standardisation is still in its early phase — making early endorsement of multilateral frameworks strategically significant.

India's 'Bharat 6G Vision' document, released by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in March 2023, set out a roadmap for India to transition from a net importer of telecom technology (as it was during 2G–4G) to a significant contributor and exporter during the 6G era. India has already established a 6G test bed and is participating in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) processes that will define IMT-2030 — the formal standard framework for 6G.

The 'Call to Action' endorsement is significant on two levels. First, it signals India's alignment with like-minded democracies on security architecture — ensuring that 6G networks are not built on infrastructure that could embed surveillance or backdoor vulnerabilities. Second, it allows India to influence intellectual property (IP) and patent pools before they are locked in, addressing the royalty burden Indian manufacturers faced during 3G and 4G.

The ITU's IMT-2030 framework and bodies like 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) are the key standard-setting arenas. India's participation through Telecommunications Standards Development Society, India (TSDSI) is central to this ambition.

The Rajya Sabha took up the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, for consideration and passing. The bill seeks to regulate the general administration of India's Central Armed Police Forces, consolidating governance provisions under a single legislative framework. CAPFs — which include the BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, and SSB — currently operate under separate statutes. This legislative move is significant as it attempts unified regulation of over one million paramilitary personnel under the Union Home Ministry.

India's Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are distinct from the Army (under Ministry of Defence) and State Police Forces. They operate under the Ministry of Home Affairs and are deployed for border guarding, internal security, counter-insurgency, and VIP protection. The five major CAPFs are: BSF (Border Security Force, 1965), CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force, 1949 — oldest), CISF (Central Industrial Security Force, 1969), ITBP (Indo-Tibetan Border Police, 1962), and SSB (Sashastra Seema Bal, 2001 — newest). NSG (National Security Guard) is sometimes grouped with them but functions differently as a counter-terror force.

Each CAPF currently draws its legal authority from its own founding statute — the BSF Act, CRPF Act, CISF Act, etc. The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 proposes a unified framework governing common administrative matters such as service conditions, discipline, appeals, and general administration — reducing statutory fragmentation.

Constitutionally, police and public order fall under the State List (Entry 1 and 2, Schedule VII), but the CAPFs derive their authority from Union List Entry 2A (deployment of armed forces in states) and Entry 1 (defence). The Union retains full legislative and executive control over CAPFs. IPS officers on central deputation typically command these forces — a matter that has itself been before courts, as suggested by past UPSC questions. This bill's passage in the Rajya Sabha is an important legislative milestone for internal security governance.