UPSC CSE Current Affairs — 11 September 2026

BRICS formally admitted five new members — Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Ethiopia, and Egypt — in January 2024, expanding from five to nine members. The bloc, originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, now collectively represents over 45% of the global population and roughly 35% of world GDP on a purchasing-power-parity basis. India continues as a founding member. The 2024 Kazan Summit hosted by Russia further advanced discussions on de-dollarisation and a BRICS payment system.

BRICS began as a Goldman Sachs investment thesis coined by Jim O'Neill in 2001, identifying Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as high-growth emerging economies. It formalised as a diplomatic grouping in 2009 (BRIC, without South Africa), with South Africa joining in 2010. The New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai, was established in 2014 and began lending operations in 2016 — this is a key static anchor examined repeatedly.

The 2024 expansion is strategically significant for India for several reasons. First, it brings Gulf energy exporters (Saudi Arabia, UAE) into the same forum as India, a major energy importer. Second, Iran's inclusion creates diplomatic complexity given India's historical engagement with Iran (Chabahar Port) alongside US sanctions pressure. Third, the bloc now spans Africa (Ethiopia, Egypt, South Africa), Southeast Asia's doorstep, and West Asia, making it a genuinely global south coalition.

The recurring BRICS agenda — de-dollarisation, local currency trade settlement, an alternative to SWIFT — is directly relevant to RBI aspirants. India has been cautious about de-dollarisation timelines, preferring gradual rupee internationalisation over abrupt dollar displacement. The NDB has admitted Bangladesh, UAE, Uruguay, and Egypt as new members beyond the original five, which is an oft-tested distinction: NDB membership ≠ BRICS membership.

For UPSC, the examiner tests whether aspirants can distinguish BRICS summit outcomes, NDB governance, India's foreign policy posture within the bloc, and geopolitical tensions (India-China within BRICS).

The Supreme Court directed Jammu and Kashmir to approve a government schoolteacher's assignment as national kayaking coach for the 2026 Asian Games after the administration denied permission. The teacher, selected by the Sports Authority of India, had sought a no-objection certificate to serve as coach. J&K's refusal was challenged, and the Court held the denial unjustified, directing approval. The ruling raises Article 19 occupational-freedom and Article 21 dignity questions alongside service-law obligations of the state.

This case sits at the intersection of service law, fundamental rights, and the state's duty not to arbitrarily obstruct a public servant's recognised national sporting role. Three constitutional threads run through it.

First, Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation. A government employee does not surrender this right entirely upon joining service, but the state may impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The restriction must satisfy proportionality — it must be the least intrusive means to achieve a legitimate aim. Refusing NOC for a nationally selected coaching assignment without cogent reason fails this test.

Second, Article 21's expansive reading — drawn from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and elaborated in Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) — protects livelihood, dignity, and the right to pursue excellence. The Court has consistently held that an arbitrary administrative denial that stifles professional growth violates the right to life in its wider sense.

Third, the state as employer bears a higher duty under Article 14 not to act arbitrarily. Blocking an employee's selection by a national body like SAI, without recorded reasons, constitutes non-application of mind — a classic ground for judicial review under Wednesbury unreasonableness.

For CLAT PG aspirants, the operative principle is that a state-action that restricts a fundamental right must clear a three-pronged test: legality (backed by law), legitimate aim, and proportionality. Absent any one limb, the restriction falls.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Advocate Yash Paul Bourney as a judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The recommendation follows the Collegium's established procedure of assessing suitability of candidates for High Court judgeships. J&K and Ladakh High Court, which serves the Union Territory created after the reorganisation of the erstwhile state in 2019, continues to face judicial vacancies that the Collegium process seeks to address.

The Collegium system governs judicial appointments to High Courts and the Supreme Court in India. It evolved through three landmark rulings collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) held that the executive had primacy in judicial appointments. The Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993) reversed this, vesting primacy in the Chief Justice of India and establishing the Collegium. The Third Judges Case (1998, Presidential Reference) clarified that the Collegium comprises the CJI and the four senior-most puisne judges of the Supreme Court for SC appointments, and the CJI with two senior-most judges for High Court appointments.

For High Court appointments under Article 217, the Collegium's recommendation is sent to the President. The President may return it once for reconsideration, but if re-sent, the appointment must be made. The J&K and Ladakh High Court is the common High Court for both Union Territories under Section 44 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bifurcated the erstwhile state into two UTs — J&K (with legislature) and Ladakh (without legislature) — effective 31 October 2019. Article 231 of the Constitution permits a common High Court for two or more states; its application to Union Territories is enabled by statute.

The Collegium process remains constitutionally significant because it represents judicial primacy over executive will in appointments, a principle repeatedly contested but consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.