UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 28 May 2026

by Vajiram & Ravi - 28 May 2026

Vajiram & Ravi provides Daily UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 28 May 2026, tailored for aspirants. We cover all relevant news and events crucial for the exam, ensuring you stay updated & well-prepared.

Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules Explained

May 28, 2026
Delhi Gymkhana Club

Delhi Gymkhana Club Latest News

  • The Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs' Land and Development Office (L&DO) wrote to the Delhi Gymkhana Club asking it to vacate its 27.3-acre leased premises on Safdarjung Road by June 5, 2026 — citing the need for defence infrastructure. 
  • The decision has triggered a major controversy, leading to legal challenges in the Delhi High Court. Recently, the HC recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance that due process of law will be followed for eviction.

History of the Delhi Gymkhana Club

  • The Delhi Gymkhana Club has a colonial legacy spanning over a century. It was founded in July 1913 — shortly after the British Indian government decided to shift the capital from Kolkata to Delhi in 1911. 
  • The land was leased by the government to the Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club in February 1928 and the buildings were constructed in the 1930s. 
  • The club was designed by architect Robert T Russell — who also designed Connaught Place and the Commander-in-Chief's residence (later known as Teen Murti, the residence of PM Jawaharlal Nehru).
  • Crucially, the lease was perpetual — meaning no fixed time frame was attached to it, though other conditions applied. 
  • Originally meant exclusively for British officials, the club was renamed Delhi Gymkhana Club after Independence and became a gathering space for members of the Indian bureaucracy, judiciary, and armed forces. 
  • It is located at 2, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi — immediately next to the Prime Minister's residence on Lok Kalyan Marg.
  • Since 2022, the club has been run by a government-appointed general committee on the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
    • This was after the Corporate Affairs Ministry approached the NCLT alleging the club was being run in violation of norms and mishandled. 
    • The club is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956.

How is Land Administered in Delhi

  • After 1947, the Union government administers land in Delhi through the Land and Development Office (L&DO) — under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. 
  • L&DO allots land for residential colonies, institutions, clubs, political parties, etc., and administers leases. Leases can be either:
    • Fixed period leases — such as 99-year leases.
    • Perpetual leases — with no fixed end date but subject to conditions.
  • The lessee pays a fixed ground rent, which can be periodically revised as per lease conditions.

Leasehold vs Freehold

  • Over the years, L&DO has converted many residential properties from leasehold to freehold — granting owners full property rights. 
  • As per a CAG report (2021), out of approximately 60,000 properties on L&DO land, around 35,000 had been converted from leasehold to freehold by 2021.

The Current Controversy — Eviction Notice

  • The L&DO's letter cited Clause 4 of the Lease Deed — which allows the government to "re-enter" the land for a "public purpose". 
  • The government stated that the 27.3-acre plot is critically required for "strengthening and securing Defence infrastructure and other vital public security purposes" — describing the location as a highly sensitive and strategic area of Delhi.
  • The L&DO formally declared the lease determined (terminated) and ordered re-entry of the premises with immediate effect — through the authority of the President of India.

The Larger Plan

  • Significantly, the club's land is adjacent to the Prime Minister's residence on Lok Kalyan Marg. 
  • The L&DO letter also refers to "resumption of adjoining government lands" — pointing to the simultaneous clearing of slums on Race Course Road of encroachments. 
  • This suggests a larger integrated plan to free up the entire surrounding area for defence or governance infrastructure purposes.

Impact of the Eviction

  • The club's general committee — which met on May 23 — wrote to the L&DO requesting "no dislocation of the club", citing the impact on:
    • 14,000 club members who have been paying fees regularly.
    • 500 employees whose livelihoods depend on the club's operations.

Legal Position and What Lies Ahead

  • The eviction notice has triggered multiple legal challenges in the Delhi High Court. 
  • The HC, recently, recorded the Solicitor General's assurance that due process of law will be followed and declined to issue further directions — keeping the matter sub judice. 
  • The legal question at the heart of the dispute is whether the government's invocation of Clause 4 (public purpose re-entry) on a perpetual lease is legally valid and whether adequate notice and compensation provisions have been followed.

Source: IE | LM

Delhi Gymkhana Club FAQs

Q1: What is the Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules controversy about?

Ans: The Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules controversy concerns lease violations, eviction proceedings, and disputes over management of prime public land in Delhi.

Q2: Why are Delhi’s land governance rules important in the Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules debate?

Ans: The Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules debate highlights how land ownership, lease renewals, and administrative control shape governance in the national capital.

Q3: What broader governance concerns emerge from the Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules dispute?

Ans: The Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules dispute raises questions about transparency, public asset management, legal compliance, and institutional accountability.

Q4: Which authorities are involved in the Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules issue?

Ans: The Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules issue involves the Central government, land-owning agencies, and authorities responsible for lease administration and public land regulation.

Q5: Why is the Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules issue significant for urban governance?

Ans: The Delhi Gymkhana Club Row and Delhi’s Land Rules issue reflects larger challenges involving land governance, elite institutions, and public property management in metropolitan cities.

VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS: Key Changes in Rural Employment Scheme

May 28, 2026
VB-G RAM G

VB-G RAM G Latest News

  • The Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 — popularly known as VB-G RAM G — is set to come into force from July 1, 2026, replacing the two-decade-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). 
  • The Ministry of Rural Development had recently released eight draft rules governing the new scheme's implementation. Public objections and suggestions have been invited within a month, after which the rules will be formally notified.

What is MGNREGA — Brief Background

  • MGNREGA (enacted 2005) was India's flagship rural employment guarantee scheme — providing 100 days of guaranteed wage employment per year to rural households willing to do unskilled manual work. 
  • It benefited over five crore rural families in 2025-26 and was entirely Centre-funded for wages. 

Key Features of VB-G RAM G

  • VB-G RAM G now replaces MGNREGA with significant structural changes.

Increased Work Days — With a Seasonal Pause

  • The guaranteed employment has been increased from 100 to 125 days per year — a 25% increase in the employment guarantee. 
  • However, a 60-day pause during peak agricultural sowing and harvesting seasons has been built in — to ensure adequate availability of farm labour during critical agricultural periods.

Shift in Funding — States Bear More Burden

  • This is the most significant and controversial change. Under MGNREGA, the Centre bore 100% of the wage bill. 
  • Under VB-G RAM G, states must now bear 40% of the funding burden — a major fiscal shift that will strain state exchequers, particularly those with high rural employment demand. 
  • The only exceptions are northeastern and Himalayan states and UTs with a legislature (where the Centre bears 90%) and UTs without legislature (where the Centre bears 100%).

Top-Down Allocation — Centre Determines Devolutions

  • VB-G RAM G reverses the MGNREGA model where Central allocations were based on state-submitted labour budgets (demand-driven). 
  • Now, the Centre determines the normative allocation to each state — making the resource allocation process top-down rather than demand-driven. 
  • This gives the Centre greater control over fund flows but reduces states' ability to respond to fluctuating local demand.

16th Finance Commission Formula for Allocation

  • The Centre will use the Sixteenth Finance Commission's horizontal devolution formula to determine normative allocations to states. This will result in winners and losers among states:
    • States likely to receive lower allocations — Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra.
    • States likely to receive higher allocations — Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Punjab, Bihar.

Performance-Based Withheld Allocation

  • A new provision allows the Centre to keep aside a portion of the normative allocation and distribute it among states based on performance parameters — including timely payment of wages, compliance with social audit requirements, percentage of work completion in a financial year, and other Centre-specified indicators. 
  • The proportion to be withheld has not yet been decided. This provision takes effect from the next financial year.

States Bear Excess Expenditure

  • If a state's demand for employment exceeds its normative allocation and expenditure goes beyond the Centre's share, the state must bear all additional expenditure — creating a significant fiscal risk for high-demand states.

DBT Wage Payments

  • All wage and unemployment allowance payments under VB-G RAM G will be made through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) into bank or post office accounts — improving transparency and reducing leakages. 
  • However, the wage rate under VB-G RAM G is yet to be declared by the Union government.

What Happens to Existing MGNREGS Workers

  • The existing MGNREGS job cards — once renewed and verified through e-KYC — will remain valid for seeking employment under VB-G RAM G. 
  • This arrangement continues until state governments issue Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Cards under the new law. No worker will be left without access to work during the transition period.

The Eight Draft Rules Released

  • The Ministry has released eight draft rules covering all key aspects of the new scheme:
    • National Level Steering Committee Rules
    • Grievance Redressal Rules
    • Administrative Expenses Rules
    • Transitional Provisions under VB-G RAM G Rules
    • Objective Parameters for Normative Allocation Rules
    • Central Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Council Rules
    • Manner of Payment of Wages and Unemployment Allowance Rules
    • Manner and Procedure of Expenditure incurred by States in excess of Normative Allocation Rules
  • The Union government has allocated ₹95,692.31 crore for the VB-G RAM G scheme for 2026-27.

Key Concerns and Implications

  • For States — The shift of 40% wage burden to states is a major fiscal challenge, particularly for high-demand states like Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu — which may also receive lower allocations under the new formula. States with weak fiscal positions may struggle to fund demand surges.
  • For Workers — The 25 additional days of guaranteed work is positive. However, the 60-day agricultural pause and the yet-to-be-declared wage rate create uncertainty. The performance-based withheld allocation could also indirectly affect workers if states under-invest in compliance.
  • For Centre-State Relations — The shift from demand-driven to top-down allocation and the imposition of performance conditions on fund release represents a significant centralisation of control over a flagship rural welfare programme — raising federalism concerns.

Source: IE

VB-G RAM G FAQs

Q1: Why is VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS considered a major policy shift?

Ans: VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS represents a major rural employment transition affecting job guarantees, implementation mechanisms, and welfare delivery across rural India.

Q2: What changes are expected under VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS?

Ans: VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS may introduce revised eligibility rules, digital monitoring systems, altered wage structures, and new implementation guidelines for rural employment.

Q3: How could VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS affect rural workers?

Ans: VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS could influence employment access, wage security, transparency, and rural livelihood opportunities depending on implementation effectiveness.

Q4: Why is VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS politically significant?

Ans: VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS is politically significant because MGNREGS has long been a major rural welfare and employment support programme in India.

Q5: What challenges may arise when VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS is implemented?

Ans: Implementing VB-G RAM G to Replace MGNREGS may face challenges related to funding, administrative coordination, digital access, worker registration, and accountability mechanisms.

Supreme Court Upholds 28% GST on Online Gaming – Explained

May 28, 2026
Online Gaming

Online Gaming Latest News

  • The Supreme Court has upheld the levy of 28% GST on the full face value of online gaming bets, validating state laws banning online betting and gambling, with the gaming industry facing a potential tax liability of around Rs. 2.5 lakh crore.

About Organised Online Gaming

  • Online gaming refers to the playing of digital games over the internet, often involving real money stakes. 
  • Organised online gaming typically includes:
    • Fantasy Sports: Platforms like Dream11, where users create virtual teams based on real players.
    • Real Money Games (RMG): Card games like Rummy and Poker played for monetary stakes.
    • Casino-Style Games: Online versions of traditional casino games.
    • Skill-Based Games: Games requiring strategic decision-making, often played for cash prizes.
    • Esports and Casual Gaming: Competitive video gaming with prize pools.

Distinction Between Game of Skill and Game of Chance

  • Indian jurisprudence has historically distinguished between:
    • Games of Skill: Where outcomes depend predominantly on the player's mental ability, knowledge, and judgement (e.g., Rummy, Poker, Fantasy Sports).
    • Games of Chance: Where outcomes depend largely on luck or random factors (e.g., lotteries, dice games).
  • While games of pure chance have traditionally been regulated as gambling, games of skill have enjoyed legal protection under court rulings. 
  • However, the lines have blurred when skill-based games are played for monetary stakes.

Regulation of Online Gaming in India

  • The regulatory landscape for online gaming in India has been complex and fragmented, involving both state and central laws.
  • Constitutional Framework
    • Entry 34 of the State List (Seventh Schedule) gives states the power to legislate on "Betting and Gambling."
    • Entry 62 of the State List allows states to impose taxes on betting and gambling.
  • Key Legislation
    • Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025: A central law passed to ban online money games, currently pending notification after Presidential assent.
    • State-Specific Laws: States like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana have passed laws banning online gaming with monetary stakes.
    • Information Technology Rules, 2023: The Centre amended the IT Rules to regulate online gaming intermediaries, requiring self-regulatory bodies to certify "permissible online games."

GST Framework

  • In October 2023, the GST Council imposed a 28% GST on the full face value of online gaming bets, lotteries, casinos, and horse racing.
  • The gaming industry contested this, arguing that GST should be levied on Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), the platform's commission, rather than the entire face value of bets.
  • Show-cause notices were issued to gaming companies alleging GST evasion of approximately Rs. 1.12 lakh crore, with potential penalties of up to 100%, bringing total liability to around Rs. 2.5 lakh crore.

Background of the Case

  • The legal challenge before the Supreme Court arose from multiple fronts:
  • State-Level Bans
    • Tamil Nadu brought in an ordinance in November 2020, later replaced by the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, to prohibit and criminalise online games played for money or stakes.
    • Karnataka passed the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, banning all forms of wagering or betting except for lottery and horse racing.
  • High Court Rulings
    • The Madras High Court quashed the Tamil Nadu law banning online gaming.
    • The Karnataka High Court, in 2022, struck down the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021.
    • Both High Courts had given a narrow interpretation, distinguishing between games of skill and games of chance.
  • State Governments' Appeal
    • The Tamil Nadu and Karnataka governments appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Courts had erred in striking down the laws. 
    • They presented empirical data showing the harmful social effects of online gaming, including addiction and suicides due to financial losses.

News Summary: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling

  • A two-judge bench delivered a comprehensive ruling on online gaming regulation, addressing both the GST issue and state-level bans.
  • Upholding 28% GST on Online Gaming
    • The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional validity of bringing organised online gaming activities with money stakes under the GST regime. Key observations include:
    • No constitutional infirmity in levying 28% GST on online games.
    • Valuation rules under CGST for determining taxable supplies for lotteries, betting, gambling, horse racing, and casinos were upheld.
    • The court rejected the gaming industry's argument that GST should be levied on Gross Gaming Revenue rather than the face value of bets.
    • The court reasoned: "Online gaming activities, including fantasy sports and other games played on digital platforms, involving staking upon uncertain outcomes, constitute betting and gambling for the purpose of GST framework."
  • Validation of State-Level Bans
    • The Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws prohibiting online games played for money or stakes:
    • Set aside the Madras and Karnataka High Court decisions striking down these laws.
  • Rejection of Skill vs. Chance Distinction
    • The court rejected the gaming companies' argument that games of skill should be exempt:
    • "When the element of betting and gambling enters the picture, the nature of the game ceases to be of relevance."
    • Even if online gaming involves skill, substantial money is involved and there is uncertainty at stake on the outcome.
    • Betting on games of skill does not enjoy immunity merely because skill is involved.
  • No Fundamental Right to Online Gambling
    • The court said, "Betting and gambling do not need any protection."
    • States are competent to frame laws to curb the mischief of betting and gambling.
    • Companies cannot claim violation of the fundamental right to practise any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) for activities harmful to public welfare.
  • Public Health and Social Concerns
    • Addiction to online betting is creating a disturbance in society.
    • Damaging social tranquillity and individual well-being.
    • States have a duty to maintain public health and protect citizens.
    • The government can ban such activities to protect public welfare.

Implications for the Centre's 2025 Law

  • The ruling will have significant implications for the validity of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which is also under Supreme Court consideration. The Centre has argued:
    • Unregulated online gaming has links with terror financing and money laundering.
    • The Act aims to protect individuals, especially youth and vulnerable populations.
    • Safeguards the integrity of financial systems and national security.
    • The law has not yet been notified after the Presidential assent.

Source: TH | TOI

Online Gaming FAQs

Q1: What did the Supreme Court rule on GST for online gaming?

Ans: The Supreme Court upheld the 28% GST levy on the full face value of online gaming bets and validated rules under CGST.

Q2: What is the financial impact on the online gaming industry?

Ans: The industry faces a potential tax liability of around ₹2.5 lakh crore, including ₹1.12 lakh crore in GST demands and 100% penalties.

Q3: Did the Supreme Court differentiate between games of skill and games of chance?

Ans: No, the court held that when betting and gambling are involved, the nature of the game (skill or chance) becomes irrelevant.

Q4: Which state laws did the Supreme Court uphold?

Ans: The court upheld the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws banning online games played for money or stakes.

Q5: What is the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025?

Ans: It is a central law to ban online money games, aimed at protecting youth and vulnerable populations, but has not yet been notified after Presidential assent.

SC Upholds Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

May 28, 2026
Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Latest News

  • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Commission’s (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, while permitting similar exercises in other States and Union Territories. 
  • The judgment assumes significance as the second phase of the SIR has begun across 12 States/UTs, including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Assam, ahead of forthcoming elections.
  • The ruling addresses the scope of the EC’s powers under Article 324, electoral integrity, and the sensitive overlap between voter eligibility and citizenship determination.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

  • EC’s power under Article 324:
    • The Bench held that the SIR neither replaces the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, nor the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 
    • Instead, it operationalises the constitutional mandate under Article 324 – Superintendence, direction and control of elections vested in the EC.
    • The Court described Article 324 as a “continuous wellspring of power”, enabling the EC to safeguard the sanctity of the democratic process at every stage of election management.
  • Justification for the SIR:
    • The Court accepted the EC’s rationale for undertaking an intensive revision after more than two decades. 
    • It cited rapid urbanisation, large-scale migration, non-reporting of deaths, duplicate voter entries, and frequent additions and deletions in electoral rolls.
    • The Bench observed that electoral rolls are not static documents and must evolve with demographic and residential changes.

Electoral Roll Revision in Bihar

  • Scale of deletions:
    • The final Bihar electoral roll published on September 30 last year contained 7.42 crore electors, compared to 7.89 crore voters when the SIR was notified in June 2025.
    • The Court directed that persons whose names were deleted due to absence, duplication, death, shifting, or suspected citizenship issues may challenge the EC’s decision before competent courts.
  • Citizenship adjudication:
    • A major feature of the ruling is the direction regarding individuals excluded on citizenship grounds.
    • The Court ordered the EC to refer such cases to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for adjudication before the next parliamentary, Assembly, or local body elections.
    • This effectively brings the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and mechanisms such as Foreigners’ Tribunals into the process.

Core Constitutional Contradiction

  • Electoral eligibility vs citizenship determination:
    • The Court simultaneously made two observations:
      • Deletion from the voter list does not amount to a declaration that a person is not an Indian citizen.
      • Excluded individuals would nevertheless face adjudication regarding citizenship status.
    • This creates a constitutional and administrative contradiction. While the EC’s scrutiny is termed “prima facie and contextual,” the consequences extend beyond mere electoral exclusion.
  • Burden of proof concerns:
    • Critics argue that the ruling indirectly shifts the burden of proving citizenship onto deleted individuals. 
    • This is especially significant because access to documentary proof remains uneven among vulnerable populations, migrants, and economically weaker sections.

Court’s Position on Citizenship Presumption

  • Petitioners relied on the SC’s earlier judgment [Lal Babu Hussein case (1995)], which recognised that inclusion in electoral rolls carries a presumption of citizenship.
  • However, the present Bench clarified that the presumption is only evidentiary and rebuttable, and the inclusion in voter lists is not a permanent immunity against future scrutiny.
  • Thus, prior enrolment does not create a conclusive legal guarantee of citizenship status.

Safeguards Introduced by the Court

  • Procedural fairness: 
    • The Court acknowledged that the original SIR process raised concerns regarding documentation requirements, transparency deficits, risk of arbitrary exclusion, and limited accessibility for vulnerable groups.
    • However, it held that subsequent judicial interventions introduced adequate safeguards, thereby making the process constitutionally compliant.
  • Transparency measures:
    • The Court specifically highlighted publication of the complete list of nearly 65 lakh excluded electors, disclosure of reasons for exclusion, and opportunity for hearing and challenge.
    • These measures, according to the Bench, transformed the process into a “verifiable and contestable” exercise consistent with procedural fairness.

Constitutional and Democratic Implications

  • Supporters: 
    • They view the judgment as reinforcing electoral purity, accuracy of voter rolls, and prevention of duplication and fraudulent entries.
    • The ruling expands the functional scope of Article 324 and strengthens the EC’s supervisory authority.
  • Critics:
    • They fear the judgment may increase disenfranchisement risks, blur the line between electoral administration and citizenship determination, and burden marginalised populations with documentary verification.
    • The decision may also revive debates similar to those surrounding the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Conclusion

  • The SC’s ruling validates the EC’s authority to undertake intensive electoral roll revisions as part of its constitutional responsibility under Article 324. 
  • The long-term impact of the ruling will depend on how transparently and fairly the SIR process is implemented across States before upcoming elections. 

Source: TH | IE

Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

Q1: What is the significance of Article 324 in empowering the Election Commission (EC) to conduct SIR of electoral rolls?

Ans: It provides plenary powers to the EC to ensure free, fair and credible elections, including periodic revision of electoral rolls.

Q2: Why did the SC uphold the constitutional validity of the SIR?

Ans: It upheld the SIR citing rapid urbanisation, migration, duplicate entries, and the need to maintain accurate and updated electoral rolls.

Q3: What constitutional concern emerges from linking electoral roll deletion with citizenship adjudication?

Ans: It risks blurring the distinction between electoral eligibility and citizenship determination, potentially leading to exclusion.

Q4: How did the SC interpret the presumption of citizenship arising from inclusion in electoral rolls?

Ans: It held that inclusion in electoral rolls creates only a rebuttable evidentiary presumption, not a conclusive proof of citizenship.

Q5: What safeguards did the SC mandate to ensure procedural fairness in the SIR process?

Ans: It mandated publication of excluded voters’ lists with reasons, notice, hearing opportunities, and judicial remedies against wrongful exclusion.

Enquire Now