UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 16 October 2026

Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulations 2023

October 16, 2026

What’s in today’s article?

Why in News?
What is Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)?
Salient Provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021
Significance of the Law on ART
Concerns Regarding the above Provisions

Why in News?

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) notified the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Amendment Rules 2023 (under the ART Act 2021) to provide donors and patients with better medical care and security.

What is Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)?

It is defined as all techniques used to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or egg cell outside the human body and transferring the embryo into the woman’s reproductive tract.
These include - sperm donation, in-vitro-fertilisation (IVF) (where the sperm is fertilised in a lab), and gestational surrogacy (child is not biologically related to surrogate).

Salient Provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021:

Rules for ART clinics & banks:
- Every ART clinic and bank must be registered under the National Registry of Banks and Clinics of India which will maintain a central database with details of such institutions.
- The registration of such clinics and banks is valid for five years and can be renewed for another five years.
- It may be cancelled or suspended if the institution violates the provisions of the Act.
Conditions for sperm donation & ART services:
- A registered ART bank can screen, collect and store semen from men aged between 21 and 55 years. It can also store eggs from women aged between 23 and 35 years.
- Under the Act, female donors need to be married with at least one child of their own, aged at least three.
- A child born via an ART procedure will be deemed to be the couple’s biological child in the eyes of the law and is entitled to all such rights. The donor does not retain any parental rights over the child.
Consent and insurance coverage:
- Such ART procedures require the written informed consent of both the couple and the donor.
- The couple seeking an ART procedure must provide insurance coverage for the female donor in case of loss, damage or death of the donor.
Regulation of ART processes:
- The National and State Board formed under the Surrogacy Act 2021 are also expected to regulate ART services.
- These boards are to advise the government on policy, review and monitor implementation of the law, and formulate a code of conduct for ART clinics and banks.
Offences:
- Offences under this Act include abandoning or exploiting children born through ART; sale, purchase, or trade of embryos; exploiting the couple or donor in any form; and transfer of an embryo into a male or an animal.
  - Such offences are punishable with imprisonment up to 8 to 12 years and a fine up to Rs 10 to 20 lakhs.
- Clinics and banks are prohibited from advertising or offering sex-selective ART.
  - Such an offence is punishable with imprisonment ranging between 5 to 10 years or/and a fine of Rs 10 to 25 lakhs.

Significance of the Law on ART:

A regulation like this is a big step towards preventing congenital abnormalities and in the long run will help the community and eliminate exploitation of donors.
The provisions will hit the unregulated sector and untrained persons.

Concerns Regarding the above Provisions:

Limiting available donors: India, much like the rest of the world, is facing a dip in fertility rates and further limiting available donors is likely to bring in more challenges.
Increased costs for ART cycles: The demand will exceed the supply, leading to increased costs for ART cycles.
- Also, couples seeking egg or sperm donation will face higher expenses as additional investments such as insurance may be required.
Restricting the number of donation attempts: Most individuals require more than one cycle to conceive, often needing two to three cycles for a higher chance of success.
- Thus, restricting the number of donation attempts has the potential to increase costs and create challenges for couples relying on ARTs.

Q1) What is in-vitro-fertilisation (IVF)?

A procedure in which eggs are removed from a woman's ovary and combined with sperm outside the body to form embryos. The embryos are grown in the laboratory for several days and then either placed in a woman's uterus or cryopreserved (frozen) for future use.

Q2) What is the Surrogacy Act 2021?

The Surrogacy Act of 2021 prohibits and punishes commercial surrogacy, permitting it only in instances of altruism. This provision has the effect of preventing surrogates from receiving any financial compensation for their role, with the exception of insurance and medical coverage.

Source: New Assisted Reproductive Technology regulations push up cost of treatment, limit conception opportunities | TH

Indian Seafarers in West Asia Conflict: The Human Cost of War

October 16, 2026

Indian Seafarers in West Asia Conflict Latest News

Since the West Asia conflict began in February 2026, 16 Indian seafarers have been killed in attacks on merchant ships — more than any other nationality. 33 have been injured, and 3 remain missing.
Yet India has not barred its seafarers from sailing into the conflict zone. As analysts put it: “In absolute numbers, foreign-flagged vessels have sustained more hits than Indian-flagged vessels. However, in terms of casualties, India has paid the highest cost.”

Why So Many Dead Seafarers Are Indian

India is the world’s second-largest supplier of seafarers, after the Philippines.
India’s seafaring workforce grew from 1.03 lakh in 2013 to 3.23 lakh in 2025.
In the Middle East, Indians are the largest seafaring nationality.
Over 90% of Indian seafarers (in government-tracked fleets) serve on foreign-flagged vessels — explaining why 15 of the 16 dead were on foreign ships.
The Indian flag offers diplomatic protection, but most Indians at sea sail under other nations’ flags.

Has India Stopped Seafarers From Sailing There?

No outright ban exists — only advisories. The Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden are classified as high-risk zones, with companies told to take precautions.
The One Binding Rule — Circular 47 (August 2026):
- Shipowners/crewing agencies must inform the Directorate General of Maritime Administration (DGMA) before transiting Hormuz.
- Must obtain written consent from every Indian seafarer on board.
- No Indian may transit the strait without being informed and agreeing.
Why Seafarers Still Agree to Go: Shipping companies offer 2–3 times normal wages, while financial necessity drives others.

Government’s Legal Position

Merchant ships have a “right of innocent passage” under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Seafarers are now recognised as “key workers” under the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025, with a right to a safe workplace.

Are Indian Seafarers Trapped?

Critics acknowledged that the vessels crossing Hormuz have been hit by projectiles, admitting a vessel in such a position “could be perceived as being trapped.”
However, the DGMA’s official stance is firmer: regular crew changes are happening, and “no seafarer remains trapped or stranded... exceeding their contract.
Current Status (as of October 8)
- DGMA monitors 38 vessels of Indian interest across the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden:
  - 30 Indian-flagged ships carrying 750 Indian seafarers.
  - 8 foreign-flagged ships with cargo bound for India.
  - Includes container vessels, crude/product tankers, bulk carriers, and LPG carriers.

Rescue Efforts

Over 4,292 Indian seafarers flown home since the DG Shipping control room was activated.
The control room has handled 19,800 calls and nearly 55,000 emails from seafarers, families, and companies.
eNavik tracking dashboard (launched May 2026) monitors 19,609 Indians across 1,970+ vessels in the region.

The Sanctioned Vessels Dilemma

In June 2026, US forces struck the Palau-flagged tanker MT Settebello off Oman, killing 3 Indian seafarers.
US Central Command said the vessel was trying to breach the US blockade of Iranian ports.
India’s position: It recognises UN-imposed sanctions, not unilateral sanctions by individual countries. In practice, this means no Indian bar on crewing US-sanctioned vessels.

Tightened Safeguards

RPSL (Recruitment and Placement Service Licence) agencies must now verify a vessel’s ownership, flag, insurance, and certificates before signing crew.
Under DGS Order, 366 foreign-flagged vessels with more than 2 recorded cases of abandoning seafarers are barred from hiring Indians through approved agencies (list published on DGMA website, with flags and IMO numbers).

Compensation: What Families Receive

On Death in a War-Like/High-Risk Zone:
- Seafarers Welfare Fund Society: ₹10 lakh ex gratia.
- National Union of Seafarers of India members: Additional ₹10 lakh.
- Maritime Union of India members: Additional ₹12 lakh.
- Plus: Shipowner’s protection and indemnity insurer compensation under the crew contract.
For Survivors:
- DGMA (a regulator, not an employer) guides seafarers back to parent companies for re-employment, or helps those unwilling to return to sea settle wages/dues and claim insurance; lost documents replaced free of charge.
- Welfare Fund schemes: Death on Board Benefit, Survivor’s Benefit, Invalidity Benefit (₹6 lakh each); ₹2 lakh for critical illness; ₹20,000/month for up to 12 months for seafarers on abandoned ships.

The Conflict: Origins and Scale of Disruption

February 28, 2026: US and Israel struck Iran.
March 4: Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed, beginning attacks on vessels. US subsequently blockaded Iranian ports and struck tankers attempting to breach it.
Ceasefires in April and June both collapsed.
Traffic impact: Pre-war, 130–140 tankers passed through Hormuz daily; now just 16–17.
Beyond the Gulf: DGMA also counts 5 Indian seafarer deaths in the Black Sea (Russia-Ukraine war), plus 8 injured, 2 missing. The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden face separate threats from Houthi attacks and piracy.

Conclusion

India’s seafarers sit at a painful intersection of global conflict and economic necessity — sailing into war zones not because they’re compelled to, but because higher wages and livelihood pressures leave few alternatives, while the government stops short of an outright ban, citing legal rights of passage and economic realities.
The compensation and tracking systems in place attempt to cushion the risk, but they cannot change the underlying fact: as long as global shipping depends on Indian crews and conflict zones remain active shipping lanes, Indian seafarers will continue bearing a disproportionate share of the human cost of wars they have no part in.

Source: IE

Indian Seafarers in West Asia Conflict FAQs

Q1: Why have Indian seafarers suffered heavily during the West Asia conflict?

Ans: Indian seafarers in West Asia conflict face disproportionate casualties because India supplies the world’s second-largest seafaring workforce, with most serving aboard foreign-flagged vessels.

Q2: Has India banned seafarers from sailing through conflict-affected waters?

Ans: Indian seafarers in West Asia conflict face government advisories rather than an outright sailing ban, while shipowners must obtain each Indian crew member’s written consent before Hormuz transit.

Q3: What steps has India taken to monitor and rescue seafarers?

Ans: Indian seafarers in West Asia conflict are monitored through DGMA’s vessel tracking and control systems, while thousands have been flown home through coordinated rescue efforts.

Q4: What compensation is available to families of Indian seafarers killed in high-risk zones?

Ans: Indian seafarers in West Asia conflict may qualify for ₹10 lakh from the Seafarers Welfare Fund Society, additional union benefits and compensation through shipowners’ insurers.

Q5: What safeguards protect Indian seafarers recruited for foreign-flagged vessels?

Ans: Indian seafarers in West Asia conflict receive additional recruitment safeguards, including verification of vessel ownership, flag, insurance and certificates, alongside restrictions involving certain abandonment-prone vessels.

OCI Cardholders’ Rights in India: Legal Powers and Safeguards

October 16, 2026

OCI Cardholders’ Rights in India Latest News

Actor Imran Khan, a US citizen and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, was asked by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to leave India by October 28.
The FRRO issued the notice days after he joined a protest on October 10 at Mumbai’s August Kranti Maidan, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The episode raises a crucial constitutional question: what powers does the government actually hold over OCI cardholders?

Who Is an OCI, and What Rights Does the Status Carry?

The OCI scheme was introduced in 2005 for certain foreign nationals of Indian origin.
India does not permit dual citizenship — an OCI remains a foreign national holding another country’s passport.
Key privileges: A multiple-entry lifelong visa, and exemption from FRRO registration regardless of stay duration. OCIs also get parity with Indian citizens/NRIs in certain property, educational, and professional matters.

Restrictions Under a March 2021 Notification

OCIs need special permission before undertaking:
- Research, missionary/Tabligh work, mountaineering, journalistic activity.
- Certain employment/internships in foreign diplomatic establishments.
- Entering protected, restricted, or prohibited areas.
- Crucially: political protests are NOT listed among activities requiring prior permission.

Political Rights Denied to OCIs

Under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, OCIs cannot vote or contest elections.
Article 19 rights (freedom of speech, peaceful assembly) are guaranteed specifically to citizens, not OCIs.

Can an OCI Be Asked to Leave for Joining a Protest?

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (in force since September 2025, replacing the Foreigners Act, 1946) gives the government wide powers over foreign nationals — and an OCI remains a foreigner for this purpose.
No explicit ban exists on foreigners attending political rallies, but the law grants considerable executive discretion.
Provisions Invoked Against Khan
- Section 7(2)(c): Empowers government to direct a foreigner shall not remain in India or in any specified area therein.
- Section 29: Empowers removal of a foreigner for violating the Act/rules, or based on an adverse security report. Officers may exercise reasonable enforcement powers.
Key insight: The statute doesn’t designate “political protest” as prohibited conduct — but it gives the executive latitude to prohibit activities through specific orders or directions.
Delegation of power: A September 2025 notification delegated powers under Sections 7(2) and 29 to FRROs and Foreigners Registration Officers — not confined to the Union Home Ministry alone.

A Relevant Precedent: The Kamil Siedczynski Case (2020)

The Calcutta High Court quashed a Leave India Notice against Kamil Siedczynski, a Polish student who had joined an anti-CAA rally in Kolkata.
The Court, applying the then Foreigners Act, held that mere participation in a political rally alone was insufficient to justify such action.
It should be noted that the 2025 Act has since replaced that law, though it retains similarly broad executive powers.

OCI Registration Cancellation: A Separate, Stricter Process

This is governed by Section 7D of the Citizenship Act — distinct from a “Leave India” notice.
Grounds For Cancellation
- OCI obtained through fraud, false representation, or concealment.
- Disaffection towards the Constitution.
- Helping an enemy during war.
- Conviction for serious crime (in specified circumstances).
- Widest ground — Section 7D(e): Cancellation where the government deems it necessary for sovereignty, integrity, security of India, friendly relations with foreign countries, or “the general public.”
Key safeguard: Unlike the power to direct a foreign national to leave India, cancellation expressly requires that the person be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Precedents: How Courts Have Handled OCI Cancellations

Courts have consistently struck down cancellations where evidence wasn’t disclosed or allegations were too vague to allow a fair defence.
[my_image src="https://vajiramias.sgp1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp/current-affairs/2026/10/16083449/Court-Precedent.jpg?v=1792119888" size="full" align="none" width="auto" height="370px" alt="" title="Court Precedent"]

What Can Khan Do Now?

He can seek withdrawal/reconsideration from the FRRO or Central Government — but no comparable “right to be heard” is spelt out under Section 7 (unlike Section 7D cancellations).
His stronger remedy: Approach the High Court under Article 226, challenging the notice’s legality and seeking interim protection. His lawyers have reportedly already done so.
Unless withdrawn, modified, or stayed, the notice requires him to leave India by October 28.

Conclusion

The Imran Khan episode exposes a structural asymmetry in how Indian law treats OCI cardholders: while cancelling OCI status demands a fair hearing under Section 7D, the “Leave India” power under the 2025 Immigration Act offers no equivalent procedural safeguard, resting instead on broad executive discretion.
Past precedents — from Siedczynski to Swain to Qazi — suggest courts are willing to intervene when vague allegations substitute for evidence, but each case turns on specific facts.
Whether Khan’s challenge succeeds will likely hinge on the same question: did mere participation in a protest, without more, justify invoking the law’s broadest immigration powers?

Source: IE | ToI

OCI Cardholders’ Rights in India FAQs

Q1: Who is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder?

Ans: OCI cardholders’ rights in India apply to eligible foreign nationals of Indian origin who retain foreign citizenship and receive privileges such as lifelong multiple-entry visas.

Q2: Can OCI cardholders participate in political protests in India?

Ans: OCI cardholders’ rights in India do not include citizens’ constitutional guarantees under Article 19, but the specified permission requirements do not explicitly list political protests.

Q3: Which law allows authorities to direct an OCI cardholder to leave India?

Ans: OCI cardholders’ rights in India are affected by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which empowers authorities to direct foreign nationals to leave India under specified provisions.

Q4: How does OCI registration cancellation differ from a Leave India notice?

Ans: OCI cardholders’ rights in India include a specific safeguard under Section 7D: cancellation requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard, unlike the separate Leave India power.

Q5: What legal remedy can an OCI cardholder pursue against a Leave India notice?

Ans: OCI cardholders’ rights in India may be protected by approaching a High Court under Article 226 to challenge the notice’s legality and seek interim protection.

CEC and EC Immunity – Section 16 of the 2023 Act and Article 14

October 16, 2026

CEC and EC Immunity Latest News

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

Legal Framework of CEC and EC Immunity

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act, 2023 contains Section 16, which bars courts from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against serving or former Chief Election Commissioners (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) for acts done or purportedly done in the discharge of official duties.
The provision has triggered debate over the balance between institutional independence and legal accountability.
The Union Law Minister had justified the amendment on the grounds that it would enable the CEC and ECs to perform their functions independently and without hindrance.
However, the provision was not included in the original Bill and was added through an amendment on the day it was passed by the Rajya Sabha. It was subsequently passed by the Lok Sabha and received Presidential assent.

Constitutional Principles Governing Immunity

Equality before the law
- Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
- Equality before the law implies the absence of arbitrary special privileges, while equal protection permits different treatment where reasonable and constitutionally valid distinctions exist.
- Under the established principle of reasonable classification, any distinction must:
- Be based on an intelligible differentia.
- Have a rational connection with the objective of the legislation.
- Avoid arbitrary or irrational discrimination.
- The central constitutional question is whether lifelong immunity for CECs and ECs satisfies these requirements.
Existing constitutional immunities
- Article 361: Protects the President and Governors from criminal proceedings and arrest during their terms of office. Civil proceedings concerning personal acts are subject to a two-month prior-notice requirement.
- Articles 105 and 194: Provide privileges to Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, including freedom of speech and voting within the constitutional framework.
- Diplomatic immunity: Under the Vienna Convention framework, diplomats enjoy specified protections from civil and criminal jurisdiction, based on functional necessity and reciprocity.

Concerns Regarding Lifelong Immunity

The provision raises several concerns about constitutional equality and institutional accountability.
Absence of a clear legislative rationale
- Section 16 was not part of the original Bill, and the Statement of Objects and Reasons did not explain the need for the provision. Its introduction through an amendment on the day of the Rajya Sabha's passage has raised questions about the justification for granting such extensive protection.
Unequal treatment of constitutional authorities
- Several independent institutions, including the judiciary, Comptroller and Auditor General, Public Service Commissions, Lokpal and Lokayuktas, and Information Commissions, perform functions requiring independence.
Potential weakening of accountability
- Although protection from external pressure can support independent decision-making, an absolute and continuing bar on civil and criminal proceedings may restrict legal scrutiny of official conduct.
- This creates a constitutional tension between protecting institutional independence and ensuring that public authorities remain accountable under the law.
Departure from the earlier legal framework
- The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, which previously governed the service conditions of CECs and ECs, did not contain an equivalent provision.

Implications for Electoral Governance

The Election Commission plays a central role in conducting free and fair elections. Its credibility depends on both operational independence and public confidence in the impartial application of electoral law.
Immunity can protect election officials from frivolous litigation intended to obstruct their work. However, excessively broad protection may raise concerns about equal treatment under the law and access to judicial remedies.
The challenge is therefore to distinguish legitimate protection for good-faith official decisions from blanket immunity that may prevent scrutiny even when serious allegations arise.

Reform Priorities

Critics call for a carefully calibrated legal framework that protects election administration without weakening constitutional accountability.
Constitutional scrutiny: Assess Section 16 against Article 14 and the principles governing reasonable classification.
Clear legislative justification: Establish a transparent rationale for any special legal protection granted to election officials.
Proportionate safeguards: Consider protections against frivolous or malicious litigation without creating an unconditional bar on proceedings.
Institutional consistency: Evaluate how immunity for election officials compares with safeguards applicable to other independent constitutional and statutory authorities.
Judicial oversight: Preserve the role of courts in examining whether alleged conduct falls within the scope of lawful official duties.

Source: TH

CEC and EC Immunity FAQs

Q1: What is Section 16 of the CEC and EC Act, 2023?

Ans: Section 16 bars courts from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against serving or former CECs and ECs for actions taken or purportedly taken in the discharge of official duties.

Q2: Which constitutional provision guarantees equality before the law?

Ans: Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Q3: Why has CEC and EC immunity become controversial?

Ans: The provision grants lifelong immunity for official actions, raising concerns about reasonable classification, legal accountability and consistency with protections available to other public authorities.

Q4: What is the difference between Article 361 and Section 16?

Ans: Article 361 provides specified protections to the President and Governors during their terms of office, whereas Section 16 extends its protection to former CECs and ECs as well.

Q5: What is the key constitutional question concerning Section 16?

Ans: The central question is whether lifelong immunity for CECs and ECs is a reasonable classification under Article 14 and whether it appropriately balances institutional independence with accountability.