UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 18 July 2026

EPFO’s Proposed Universal Pension Scheme – Explained

July 18, 2026

Universal Pension Scheme Latest News

The Union Government is working on a new EPFO-led contributory pension scheme under the EPFO 3.0 reforms, aimed at providing a flexible, universal retirement savings framework for formal, informal, and gig workers.

Background

India's social security landscape is fragmented, with different retirement schemes catering to different sections of the workforce.
While organised sector employees are covered under the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS), a large proportion of informal workers, gig workers, and higher-income employees remain outside comprehensive pension coverage.
According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), nearly 90% of India's workforce is employed in the informal sector, many of whom lack adequate retirement security.
The implementation of the Code on Social Security, 2020, further highlighted the need to extend social security benefits to gig and platform workers for the first time.
Against this backdrop, the government has initiated EPFO 3.0 reforms, which aim to modernise the retirement system through digital infrastructure, greater flexibility, and universal coverage.
As part of these reforms, the Ministry of Labour and Employment is developing a new contributory pension scheme centred around the concept of a Target Retirement Sum (TRS).
Unlike the existing Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS), which follows a defined-benefit model subject to eligibility conditions, the proposed scheme is expected to adopt a defined contribution framework, allowing individuals to build a retirement corpus through contributions from multiple sources while offering greater flexibility in retirement planning.

Proposed Target Retirement Sum (TRS) Scheme

The proposed scheme is a defined contribution pension system under which every subscriber will maintain an individual pension account.
Instead of guaranteeing a fixed pension amount, the scheme will help members accumulate a Target Retirement Sum (TRS) based on:
- Desired retirement income
- Expected retirement age
- Periodic contributions
- Investment returns
At the age of 60 years, the accumulated corpus may either:
- Converted into an annuity based on prevailing annuity and interest rates; or
- Withdrawn through a Systematic Withdrawal Plan (SWP), depending on the member's preference.
The scheme seeks to combine the long-term savings approach of the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) with the pension objective of retirement planning.

Key Features of the Proposed Pension Scheme

Defined Contribution Framework
- The proposed scheme will follow a defined contribution model, under which pension benefits will depend on the accumulated corpus rather than a pre-defined pension amount.
- Contributions will be invested in long-term government-backed securities, with interest credited annually to the pension account.
Target Retirement Sum (TRS)
- Each subscriber will be able to choose a Target Retirement Sum, representing the desired retirement corpus.
- The EPFO's digital platform will:
  - Dynamically calculate the required corpus
  - Estimate the contribution amount needed
  - Track progress towards the target
  - Allow members to revise their retirement goals over time
- Members will have access to personalised dashboards displaying:
  - Total contributions
  - Current corpus
  - Progress towards the TRS
  - Projected retirement benefits
Multiple Sources of Contributions
- One of the distinguishing features of the scheme is its flexible contribution model.
- Contributions may come from:
  - Employees & Employers
  - Government co-contributions for lower-income workers
  - Aggregators for gig and platform workers
  - Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds
  - NGOs and other third-party contributors
- This multi-source approach aims to improve retirement savings, especially for workers with irregular incomes.
Flexible Pension Withdrawal
- Unlike traditional pension systems that mandate annuity purchase, the proposed scheme will provide flexibility in retirement withdrawals.
- Members may choose:
  - A regular annuity
  - A Systematic Withdrawal Plan (SWP)
  - Higher withdrawals during the initial years of retirement
  - Lower withdrawals to allow the remaining corpus to continue earning interest
- This flexibility is intended to help retirees align pension pay-outs with their financial needs.
Inflation-Adjusted Retirement Planning
- The proposed digital platform will include pension simulation tools based on factors such as:
  - Age
  - Retirement age
  - Corpus size
  - Interest rates
  - Voluntary contributions
  - Contribution frequency
- Members will also receive inflation-adjusted projections, enabling better long-term retirement planning.
Coverage of Gig and Informal Workers
- A major objective of the scheme is to expand social security coverage beyond the organised workforce.
- The proposed framework will cover:
  - Gig workers
  - Platform workers
  - Building and construction workers
  - Informal sector workers
  - Existing EPFO subscribers
  - Employees currently outside the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS)
- The government expects nearly 2.5 crore gig workers and construction workers to be brought under the social security net over the next five years.
- To facilitate multiple employments, the scheme will introduce a one-to-many mapping, allowing a single Universal Account Number (UAN) to be linked with multiple employers and digital platforms while maintaining separate contribution records.
Family and Survivor Benefits
- The proposal also includes a Family Benefit Fund, managed on actuarial principles.
- The fund is expected to provide:
  - Survivor pension for spouses
  - Benefits for children
  - Support for orphaned dependents
- This would strengthen the social protection aspect of the pension system.

Significance of the Proposal

If implemented, the proposed pension scheme could significantly strengthen India's social security architecture by:
- Expanding pension coverage to millions of informal and gig workers
- Providing greater flexibility in retirement planning
- Encouraging voluntary retirement savings
- Leveraging EPFO's digital infrastructure for efficient service delivery
- Supporting the implementation of the Code on Social Security, 2020
- Reducing old-age income insecurity among workers outside the organised sector
The proposal also aligns with the government's broader objective of achieving universal social security coverage.

Source: IE

Universal Pension Scheme FAQs

Q1: What is the Target Retirement Sum (TRS)?

Ans: TRS is the retirement corpus that a subscriber aims to accumulate before retirement under the proposed EPFO pension scheme.

Q2: Who will be covered under the proposed pension scheme?

Ans: The scheme is proposed to cover formal sector employees, informal workers, gig workers, platform workers, and employees currently outside the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS).

Q3: How will the retirement corpus be funded?

Ans: Contributions may come from employees, employers, government co-contributions, aggregators, CSR funds, NGOs, and other third parties.

Q4: What retirement options will members have?

Ans: Members may choose either an annuity or a flexible Systematic Withdrawal Plan (SWP), depending on their retirement needs.

Q5: How does the proposed scheme differ from the National Pension System (NPS)?

Ans: Unlike the market-linked NPS, the proposed EPFO scheme is expected to rely on government-backed investments, offer flexible withdrawals, and incorporate the Target Retirement Sum (TRS) model.

Content Blocking Regime: NITI Aayog’s Deregulation Push for India’s Digital Economy

July 18, 2026

Content Blocking Regime Latest News

NITI Aayog has sought feedback from major tech companies and start-ups on whether India's current online content blocking requirements and transparency timelines are "feasible."
This is part of a broader deregulation push targeting India's tech laws framework, which falls under the IT Ministry's domain.

What Has NITI Aayog Asked?

The Aayog has sought industry views on how existing legislation can be simplified. The consultation covers a wide sweep of regulatory issues:
- Laws affecting social media companies and other online intermediaries
- Cybersecurity
- Data protection
- Online gaming
In a meeting, where executives of technology industry participated, specific questions were shared with stakeholders, including:
- Are current takedown, grievance, and transparency timelines operationally feasible across different categories and sizes of intermediaries?
- Which intermediary due diligence obligations impose the highest recurring compliance burden, and what specific operational simplifications would be most impactful?
NITI Aayog will review industry responses and send a detailed note to the IT Ministry with its recommendations. However, the IT Ministry retains discretion and may or may not accept the Aayog's suggestions.

The 'Jan Vishwas Siddhant' Initiative

This consultation is part of NITI Aayog's Jan Vishwas Siddhant initiative, an effort to build a trust-based regulatory environment by gathering inputs across sectors on deregulation and rationalisation of existing laws.
Experts described the effort as an attempt to clear the system's "regulatory cholesterol."

India's Tightening Content Blocking Regime

The consultation comes at a time when India has significantly expanded its content blocking activity - content blocking orders rose from over 12,000 in 2024 to over 24,000 in 2025.

Shortened takedown timelines

In February, the IT Ministry notified amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Social media platforms must now remove flagged content within two-three hours, down from the earlier 24–36-hour window.
Industry executives have called this the shortest takedown window mandated by any government globally.
Meta, which operates Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has called the norms "challenging" to comply with operationally.

Related Development: Expanding Powers to Issue Blocking Orders

Separately, the Centre has been exploring whether to extend content-blocking powers under Section 69(A) of the IT Act, 2000 (currently exercised only by the IT Ministry) to the Ministries of Home Affairs, External Affairs, Defence, and Information and Broadcasting.
This proposal is understood to be currently stalled.

India's Expanding Digital Footprint

India's rapid digitalisation has transformed how citizens interact with the State, access services, and participate in governance.
Digital platforms now operate at population scale, making data a critical public resource.
This has made embedding privacy and security into digital systems a central governance priority.

Scale of India's Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)

India's DPI forms the backbone of its digital transformation. Key initiatives include:
- Aadhaar: A trusted digital identity framework.
- UPI: Revolutionised real-time digital payments.
- MyGov: A citizen-participation platform with over 6 crore users.
- eSanjeevani: Facilitated more than 44 crore digital health consultations, expanding healthcare access.
These platforms demonstrate the scale and inclusiveness of India's DPI while underscoring the need for strong data protection to sustain public trust.

Connectivity and Digital Inclusion at Scale

India's digital reach is backed by strong connectivity indicators:
- India is the world's third-largest digitalised economy.
- Over 101.7 crore broadband subscribers (as of September 2025), each spending an average of 1,000 minutes online.
- Mobile data is highly affordable, at $0.10 per GB (2025).
This affordable, widespread connectivity has made digital platforms central to identity verification, payments, healthcare, education, grievance redressal, and citizen participation.

Conclusion

NITI Aayog's outreach signals a recalibration of India's tech regulation, weighing tighter content control against ease of compliance for platforms.
Whether this results in eased timelines or reaffirms the current strict regime will depend on how the IT Ministry balances industry concerns with its broader push for a stronger digital enforcement architecture.

Source: IE | PIB

Content Blocking Regime FAQ

Q1: Why is NITI Aayog reviewing India's Content Blocking Regime?

Ans: The Content Blocking Regime is under review to assess whether current takedown timelines and compliance obligations are practical for digital intermediaries of different sizes.

Q2: What concerns have technology companies raised about the Content Blocking Regime?

Ans: Technology companies argue that the Content Blocking Regime imposes extremely short content removal deadlines, creating operational, legal and compliance challenges.

Q3: How does the Jan Vishwas Siddhant initiative relate to the Content Blocking Regime?

Ans: The Jan Vishwas Siddhant initiative seeks to simplify the Content Blocking Regime by promoting trust-based regulation, reducing compliance burdens and improving regulatory efficiency.

Q4: Why is the Content Blocking Regime becoming increasingly important in India?

Ans: The Content Blocking Regime has gained importance because India's rapidly expanding digital economy requires a balance between online safety, innovation and freedom of expression.

Q5: What broader governance challenge does the Content Blocking Regime highlight?

Ans: The Content Blocking Regime illustrates the challenge of balancing national security, digital rights, platform accountability, ease of doing business and effective regulatory enforcement.

CBFC Certification: Can Courts Restrain the Release of a Certified Film?

July 18, 2026

CBFC Certification Latest News

The Supreme Court declined to permit the release of the animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath on its scheduled date of July 17, and instead directed the producer to postpone release until after July 27, when the annual Rath Yatra in Puri concludes.
This came after the Orissa High Court had restrained the film's release over concerns about its depiction of Lord Jagannath.

What Triggered the Dispute?

The Orissa High Court held that the film's portrayal of Lord Jagannath's childhood and adventures was "not in tune with the religious texts of the Skandha Purana and the Brahma Purana," and that releasing it during the Rath Yatra would be "counterproductive."
The producer challenged this order before the Supreme Court, questioning both the High Court's jurisdiction and whether a court can override CBFC certification based on apprehended public disorder.
The producer's plea argued that the High Court "committed a grave jurisdictional error" by going beyond the scope of the original petition:
- The original petitioners had sought to restrain the film's release only within Odisha.
- Instead, the High Court imposed a blanket, nationwide stay.
The film held three separate 'U' (universal) certificates from the CBFC for its Hindi, Telugu, and Odia versions (issued in May, June, and July respectively).
The stay halted the Hindi and Telugu versions even in states "where no cause of action existed and no relief was ever sought."

The Weight of CBFC Certification

The plea argued that once an expert statutory body like the CBFC certifies a film for unrestricted public exhibition, there is a "strong legal presumption of validity," and courts should not override this based on "unverified apprehensions."
Key precedents cited:
- Union of India v K.M. Shankarappa (2000): The Supreme Court held that once an expert body certifies a film, the executive cannot revisit that decision merely due to apprehended law-and-order concerns; maintaining order is the state government's responsibility, not a ground to withhold certification.
- S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Court ruled that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed due to threats of demonstrations or violence, and that the state has an "obligatory duty" to prevent disruption rather than curb free speech, calling yielding to such threats a "negation of the rule of law."

Limits on this Deference

Certification is not entirely immune from judicial review.
Courts can examine whether certification followed due legal process, statutory grounds, and fair procedure.
Where the CBFC acts within its statutory framework, courts generally defer to it.
Separately, the Cinematograph Act allows the government to suspend or revoke certification post-approval, and permits criminal liability and seizure for violations.

Disputed Facts on Screening and Timing

The High Court's order noted that the producer released the film "out of the blue" without incorporating changes assured during a screening before the Gajapati Maharaja and the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration.
The producer's petition disputes this, claiming the review committee walked out after watching just 10-15 minutes without giving specific feedback, and that the release, originally set for July 10, was voluntarily deferred to July 17 out of respect.
The plea also highlighted the commercial stakes: an investment of around ₹10 crore, a two-month public campaign, and released trailers, arguing the PIL was filed two days before release to cause "maximum commercial and financial damage."
It further contended that the film's central character, "Jagan," is a fictional child figure and not a literal human portrayal of the deity, reinforcing its status as a fictional devotional work.

The Free Speech Argument

The High Court had reasoned that even though films enjoy freedom of expression, a balance is needed when content could "shatter the sentiments, emotions and religious belief" of the public, especially where it risks unrest.
The producer's plea countered this by invoking artistic licence, arguing that:
- Creative freedom in a devotional, animated work meant for children deserves to be "placed on a high pedestal."
- The Madras High Court's ruling on The Da Vinci Code (2006) held that a fictional work with a clear disclaimer cannot be treated as a genuine threat to public order.
- Free speech "cannot be held hostage to a heckler's veto."
- Neither the PIL petitioners nor the temple administration have statutory power under the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 to block the screening of a certified film.

Conclusion

The case highlights a recurring tension in Indian constitutional law: balancing religious sentiment against artistic freedom once a film has cleared statutory certification.
By deferring release rather than banning the film outright, the Supreme Court signalled restraint, leaving the larger question of judicial power over CBFC-certified content for further hearing.

Source: IE | TH

CBFC Certification FAQ

Q1: What legal significance does CBFC Certification have in India?

Ans: CBFC Certification creates a strong presumption that a film is fit for public exhibition, subject to limited judicial review on procedural or statutory grounds.

Q2: Can courts interfere with CBFC Certification after a film has been certified?

Ans: Courts may review the legality of CBFC Certification but generally avoid restraining certified films solely on anticipated law-and-order concerns or public objections.

Q3: Which Supreme Court judgments strengthen the authority of CBFC Certification?

Ans: CBFC Certification has been reinforced through judgments such as K.M. Shankarappa and S. Rangarajan, which uphold artistic freedom against the threat of a "heckler's veto."

Q4: Why has the Jagannath film case revived the debate on CBFC Certification?

Ans: The case questions whether judicial intervention can override CBFC Certification based on concerns relating to religious sentiments and potential public unrest.

Q5: Why is CBFC Certification important for freedom of expression?

Ans: CBFC Certification balances artistic freedom with statutory regulation, ensuring that certified films are not easily prevented from release without compelling legal justification.