UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 13 November 2026

PLI Schemes – NITI Aayog Assessment and Key Reforms

November 13, 2026

PLI Schemes Latest News

A joint impact assessment by NITI Aayog and IIM Ahmedabad has found that cumulative disbursements under India's 14 Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes reached only 18.51% of their total approved outlay by March 2026, while recommending reforms to improve their long-term effectiveness.

Performance of PLI Schemes

Introduced in 2020 across 14 key sectors, including pharmaceuticals, textiles, automobiles and steel, the PLI schemes have a combined financial outlay of Rs. 1.91 lakh crore.
As of March 2026, the assessment reported:
- Incentive disbursement: Rs. 35,351 crore, representing 18.51% of the total outlay.
- Investment attracted: Rs. 2.40 lakh crore.
- Production generated: Rs. 22.66 lakh crore.
- Employment created: More than 8.49 lakh people.
- Targeted segments: Nearly 70% were broadly on track.
The report noted particularly strong outcomes in electronics, telecom and pharmaceutical drugs.

Differences in Sectoral Performance

Disbursement levels vary considerably across sectors.
- Nine schemes, including those for bulk drugs, automobiles and textiles, had disbursements below 10% of their respective outlays.
- Schemes covering drones and drone components, large-scale electronics and food products recorded disbursements ranging from 25% to 77% of their outlays.
The report cautioned that all schemes did not become operational at the same time and some had longer gestation periods.

Understanding Low Disbursements

The relatively low disbursement figure is partly linked to the performance-based structure of PLI schemes.
Incentives are released only after participating companies meet specified investment, production and other eligibility criteria. Payments are therefore not made upfront.
As companies expand capacity, increase production and meet progressively higher performance thresholds, disbursements are expected to rise over the respective scheme periods.
However, the assessment also highlighted concerns about the quality and sustainability of industrial growth.
These include increased imports under certain electronics manufacturing programmes and the limited employment generation associated with mobile phone manufacturing, which has largely been driven by assembly operations.

Key Recommendations of NITI Aayog

Sector-specific policy design
- A uniform approach may not address the different challenges faced by individual sectors.
- Technology adoption, gestation periods, global competition and capital requirements vary considerably. Future policy design should account for these differences.
Demand-side incentives
- Existing PLI schemes are largely supply-driven, encouraging companies to expand production and capacity through output-linked financial incentives.
- The report recommends that future schemes incorporate demand-pull mechanisms alongside supply-side incentives to ensure sustained demand for domestically manufactured products.
Standardised data collection
- Reporting mechanisms across ministries need standardisation. Information on additional revenue, employment, production and exports is currently inconsistent across sectors.
- Clear guidelines should specify what companies must report, reporting timelines and procedures for monitoring annual progress.
Long-term effectiveness
- The focus must shift from evaluating the initial success of PLI schemes towards strengthening their long-term contribution to industrial transformation.

Significance for India's Industrial Development

PLI schemes seek to strengthen domestic manufacturing, attract investment, generate employment and improve India's competitiveness in global supply chains.
The assessment indicates that the schemes have attracted substantial investment and generated significant production.
However, their long-term success will depend on whether manufacturing expansion translates into deeper domestic value addition, sustainable employment and competitive industrial capabilities.
A combination of targeted incentives, stronger domestic demand and reliable performance data can improve policy outcomes.

Conclusion

The PLI framework has contributed to investment mobilisation and manufacturing expansion, but uneven sectoral performance and concerns over employment and import dependence highlight the need for recalibration.
A shift towards sector-specific policies, demand-side support and standardised monitoring will be important in making future incentive programmes more effective.

Source: IE

PLI Schemes FAQs

Q1: What are Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes?

Ans: PLI schemes are government initiatives that provide financial incentives to eligible manufacturers based on specified production, investment and other performance criteria.

Q2: What is the total outlay of the 14 PLI schemes?

Ans: The combined approved outlay is Rs. 1.91 lakh crore.

Q3: What percentage of the PLI outlay was disbursed by March 2026?

Ans: Cumulative disbursements stood at 18.51% of the total outlay.

Q4: Which sectors recorded relatively strong disbursement performance?

Ans: Drones and drone components, large-scale electronics and food products recorded disbursements ranging from 25% to 77% of their respective outlays.

Q5: Why has NITI Aayog recommended demand-side incentives?

Ans: Existing schemes primarily encourage production and capacity expansion. Demand-side support can help create sustained demand for domestically manufactured products.

India’s Progress in Tuberculosis (TB) Elimination

November 13, 2026

Tuberculosis (TB) Latest News

According to the WHO Global Tuberculosis (TB) Report 2026, India has recorded a 38% reduction in TB-related mortality between 2015 and 2025, compared with a global reduction of 35%.
Despite this progress, India remains the country with the highest TB burden, accounting for 25% of global TB cases in 2025.
The report acknowledges India's progress in reducing mortality, improving treatment outcomes and strengthening domestic financing, while highlighting the continuing challenge of high disease incidence.

Global and India’s TB Burden

An estimated 10.6 million people developed TB globally in 2025, around 75,000 fewer than in 2024.
The global TB incidence rate declined from 131 cases per lakh population in 2024 to 129 in 2025.
The global incidence reduction since 2015 was 14%, significantly below the End TB Strategy milestone of 50% by 2025 and the target of 80% by 2030.
TB remains the leading cause of death from a single infectious agent and ranks 13th among all causes of death globally.
Top eight countries contributing to global TB cases (2025): India (25% share of global cases), Indonesia (10%), Philippines (6.8%), China (6.5%), Pakistan (6.4%), Nigeria (4.9%), DR Congo (3.9%), and Bangladesh (3.7%).
These eight countries account for approximately 67% of global TB cases, while 30 high-burden countries together account for 88%.
Demographic distribution: Globally, 54% of people developing TB in 2025 were men, 35% women and 11% children.

India’s Progress in TB Control

Declining mortality: Estimated TB deaths declined from 28 per lakh population in 2015 to 18 per lakh in 2025, representing a 38% reduction.
Treatment success: India achieved a treatment success rate of 94%, reflecting improvements in treatment delivery and patient support.
Domestic financing: Around 96% of TB programme funding requirements are met through domestic resources, demonstrating sustained national investment.
Declining MDR-TB: India remains among four countries accounting for more than 50% of global multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB cases, although MDR-TB incidence has been gradually declining.
Data revision under consideration: The WHO, India's Central TB Division and ICMR are analysing district-level sentinel surveillance data and findings from the nationally representative TB prevalence survey conducted by ICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (NIRT) in 2025.

Government Initiatives for TB Elimination

The progress reflects interventions under the National TB Elimination Programme (NTEP), supported by technology, early diagnosis, treatment and community participation.
TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan:
- Launched as an intensified campaign on December 7, 2024, covering 347 high-priority districts across 33 States and UTs, and subsequently expanding nationwide.
Achievements (2024 - Nov 2026):
- More than 11 crore chest X-rays conducted.
- Over 3 crore nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) conducted.
- Approximately 48.64 lakh TB cases detected, including 14.97 lakh asymptomatic cases.
Significance: Detection of asymptomatic cases enables early treatment, reduces transmission and prevents progression to severe disease.
Technology-enabled TB Management:
- AI-enabled chest X-rays: Improve screening and early identification.
- AI-based hotspot identification: Helps identify geographical areas with high TB vulnerability.
- Predictive AI tools: Identify high-risk patients prone to adverse treatment outcomes.
- Digital interventions: Khushi AI Chatbot and Avatar Videobot support awareness and patient engagement.
- Rapid molecular diagnostics: Enable faster and more accurate detection.
Nutritional and Community Support:
- Ni-kshay Poshan Yojana: Provides nutritional assistance to TB patients.
- Ni-kshay Mitra initiative: Encourages community participation and nutritional support through individual and institutional donors.
- Integration of TB screening with diabetes, undernutrition and other comorbidities facilitates comprehensive and differentiated patient care.

Challenges in Achieving TB Elimination

High disease burden: India continues to account for one-fourth of global TB cases.
Detection gaps: Asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases contribute to continued transmission.
Drug resistance: MDR-TB remains a significant public health challenge.
Socio-economic determinants: Undernutrition, poverty, overcrowding and poor living conditions increase vulnerability.
Global progress deficit: The worldwide decline in TB incidence remains far below the End TB Strategy targets.
Data uncertainties: Revision of India's incidence estimates highlights the need for stronger surveillance and reliable disease-burden assessment.

Way Forward

Strengthen proactive screening, particularly among vulnerable and high-risk populations.
Expand access to rapid molecular diagnostics and AI-enabled screening.
Ensure early treatment initiation, adherence and patient-centred care.
Strengthen TB preventive treatment and management of drug-resistant TB.
Integrate TB control with nutrition, diabetes management and poverty alleviation programmes.
Increase community participation and awareness to reduce stigma and encourage early diagnosis.
Sustain domestic financing, research and evidence-based policymaking.

Conclusion

India's substantial share of global TB cases underscores the need to move beyond mortality reduction towards accelerated prevention, early detection and interruption of transmission.
A technology-driven, adequately financed and community-centred approach remains essential to achieving the goal of a TB-Mukt Bharat.

Source: IE | BS

Tuberculosis (TB) FAQs

Q1: What does India's 38% reduction in TB mortality since 2015 indicate?

Ans: It reflects the impact of early diagnosis, improved treatment delivery, AI-enabled screening, etc., under the NTEP.

Q2: Why does India continue to face a high tuberculosis burden despite declining mortality?

Ans: Because of persistent poverty, undernutrition, overcrowding, asymptomatic infections, diagnostic gaps, etc.

Q3: How is technology transforming India's fight against tuberculosis?

Ans: AI-enabled X-rays, predictive analytics, hotspot identification and rapid molecular diagnostics.

Q4: What is the role of community participation in India's TB elimination strategy?

Ans: Initiatives such as Ni-kshay Mitra and TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan promote community-based screening, etc.

Q5: What measures are essential for achieving the goal of TB-Mukt Bharat?

Ans: Strengthening preventive treatment, early diagnosis, nutritional security, MDR-TB management, etc.

Personal Insolvency Framework in India: The Venugopal Dhoot Bankruptcy Case

November 13, 2026

Personal Insolvency Latest News

Recently, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) declared Venugopal Dhoot, former promoter and director of Videocon Industries, bankrupt — holding him personally liable as guarantor for loans worth ₹12,668 crore extended by the State Bank of India (SBI).
This is a rare occurrence in India, as very few loan default cases reach the stage of personal bankruptcy. Once a business titan, Dhoot now stands to lose control over his companies and personal assets, unless an appellate authority stays or sets aside the order.

Understanding Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Insolvency: Occurs when a person or company cannot repay debts as they fall due.
Bankruptcy: The formal legal process through which an insolvent individual is declared bankrupt, enabling asset distribution among creditors.
Governed in India by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 — used by banks for loan recovery, and promoted by the government as a rescue mechanism for financially distressed companies.

How the Recovery Process Works

Three Sequential/Simultaneous Mechanisms:
- Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): Creditors approach NCLT to recover dues from a defaulting company; failure leads to liquidation.
- Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP): In force since December 2019 — banks can pursue a personal guarantor (promoter) who guaranteed company loans.
- Bankruptcy: The final stage — triggered only when both CIRP and PIRP fail to recover dues; effectively the liquidation of the personal guarantor.
Key rule: If a company owes ₹100, the bank’s total claim across CIRP and PIRP combined cannot exceed ₹100 — the processes can run simultaneously or sequentially, but recovery is capped at the actual debt.

Timeline of the Dhoot Case

2010-2012: SBI and associated banks (merged with SBI in April 2017) granted loans to Videocon Industries Ltd and Videocon Telecommunications Ltd; Dhoot provided an unconditional personal guarantee.
February 2018: Companies defaulted; SBI issued demand notices to Dhoot — yielding no recovery.
June 2018: CIRP admitted by NCLT; eventually 12 more Videocon group companies were brought under the process. Creditors claimed ₹72,078 crore, of which ~₹65,000 crore was admitted.
June 2021: NCLT approved a resolution plan by Twin Star Technologies Ltd.
January 2022: NCLAT set aside this plan, as it offered creditors only ₹2,962 crore — a haircut of over 95%. Matter remanded to the Committee of Creditors; Twin Star’s Supreme Court challenge remains pending.
Result: Videocon’s dues to banks remain largely unresolved even today.
May 2021 onwards: SBI (largest lender) filed for PIRP against Dhoot; the tribunal initiated PIRP in April 2026 after Dhoot failed to submit a repayment plan.
- Dhoot’s offer of ₹600 crore was rejected, as it was contingent on a future Siliguri project with no upfront payment.
July 2026: PIRP terminated — leading directly to bankruptcy declaration in November 2026.

What Happens to Dhoot Now?

His entire estate vests with a bankruptcy trustee appointed by NCLT.
He must disclose all assets, income sources, and net worth.
Assets will be sold (similar to liquidation) to repay creditors, with limits even on retaining residential property.
A bankrupt individual cannot hold a company directorship.

Why Personal Bankruptcy Cases Are Rare

Personal guarantor bankruptcy remains “largely untested” under the IBC — it takes very long to reach this stage, and recovery is typically low, since discovering an individual’s actual net worth is harder than recovering from a company’s tangible assets.

The Data Tells the Story

As per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI):
- Bankruptcy Applications: Only 310 filed since 2019.
- PIRP Applications: 5,186 filed; only 64 resulted in approved repayment plans — creditors realised just ~1% of admitted claims.
- Corporate CIRP (since 2016): 9,166 applications admitted; 1,484 resolution plans approved, 3,074 liquidations ordered, 1,333 withdrawn (Section 12A), 1,410 closed/settled, 1,865 ongoing.
- Recovery Comparison: Resolution plans yielded an average 30.52% recovery for creditors; liquidation yielded only ~4% — far higher than personal insolvency recovery rates.

Conclusion

The Dhoot case illustrates both the IBC’s reach and its limitations — while the law empowers creditors to pursue personal guarantors, actual recovery remains minimal and the process painfully slow.
With recovery rates far lower than corporate insolvency, India’s personal bankruptcy framework needs stronger enforcement mechanisms to make guarantees a genuine deterrent against loan defaults.

Source: IE

Personal Insolvency FAQs

Q1: Why was Venugopal Dhoot declared bankrupt by the NCLT?

Ans: The NCLT declared Dhoot bankrupt after personal insolvency proceedings failed, holding him liable as guarantor for SBI loans worth ₹12,668 crore.

Q2: What is the difference between insolvency and bankruptcy?

Ans: Under the personal insolvency framework in India, insolvency means inability to repay debts, while bankruptcy is the formal legal process for distributing assets among creditors.

Q3: What is the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process under the IBC?

Ans: The personal insolvency framework in India allows banks to pursue promoters who personally guaranteed company loans through the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process.

Q4: What happens to an individual after being declared bankrupt in India?

Ans: Under the personal insolvency framework in India, the individual’s estate vests with a bankruptcy trustee, who can sell assets to repay creditors.

Q5: Why are personal bankruptcy cases relatively rare in India?

Ans: The personal insolvency framework in India remains largely untested because proceedings take years, asset discovery is difficult and creditor recoveries are generally very low.

Climate Finance for Developing Countries: The Unresolved Debate at UN Summits

November 13, 2026

Climate Finance Latest News

As negotiators gathered in Antalya, Türkiye, for COP31, the familiar dispute over climate finance resurfaced once again.
While wealthy nations highlight rising sums mobilised for climate action, developing countries raise a harder question: how much money actually reaches them, on what terms, and how quickly?
For India and the Global South, this isn’t mere accounting — it concerns protecting farms, cities, and lives from climate impacts while expanding clean energy access.

The Widening Gap Between Need and Availability

The UN Environment Programme’s 2026 Adaptation Gap Report estimates developing countries will need ~$305 billion/year by 2035 for climate adaptation.
In 2024, developed countries provided only $28.2–$31.7 billion in public adaptation finance.
Even if the Brazil summit’s goal to triple this finance by 2035 is achieved, it would cover only 20-29% of the estimated need.

The Unfinished Bargain: Origins of the Dispute

Under the UN Climate Convention, developed nations accepted an obligation to provide financial resources to developing countries — reaffirmed by the 2015 Paris Agreement (nearly 200 nations committed to limiting warming to well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C).
This principle reflects historical responsibility: nations most responsible for emissions and with greater financial capacity should support those with fewer resources.
2009 Copenhagen Summit: Wealthy nations pledged $100 billion/year by 2020 — a target missed until 2022, finally reaching $136.7 billion in 2024 (per OECD), exceeding the target for the third consecutive year.

Why the Headline Numbers Mislead

The OECD’s total includes public finance, multilateral development bank contributions, export credits, and private investment linked to public interventions — counting the full-face value of loans, not just grants.
2024 breakdown: Loans = $68.5 billion (67%); Grants = just $29.7 billion (29%).
Why This Matters: A grant doesn’t need repayment; even a low-interest loan remains debt. A loan for a revenue-generating power project isn’t equivalent to a grant for flood protection or heat action plans.
Disbursement Gap: Pledged money isn’t necessarily disbursed — approval procedures can delay fund transfers for years.
No Common Accounting Standard Exists: OECD counts face value of loans, while Oxfam estimates the real 2024 figure at just $32.7–$44.7 billion using a narrower, discounted measure — exposing deep disagreement over what counts as real support.
Private Investment Limitations: Easier to attract for profitable projects (solar, wind), but far harder for public needs like coastal protection, urban drainage, or early warning systems — which prevent losses but generate no direct financial return. Public funding, especially grants, remains essential.

The 2024 Azerbaijan Agreement: Progress, But Unresolved

Developed countries agreed to lead in providing at least $300 billion/year by 2035.
A broader ambition was set to scale finance (public + private) to $1.3 trillion/year.
Key Gap: These are different commitments — the agreement didn’t specify how much should be grants vs loans vs direct government support.

India’s Position

India has formally called for at least $1 trillion/year from developed countries, primarily as grants and low-cost loans.
India insists support must be affordable, predictable, and accessible — not a rejection of private investment, but recognition that private capital cannot replace the financial responsibility wealthy nations accepted, especially for non-commercial mitigation/adaptation projects.
Access remains a universal concern: complex applications, limited technical capacity, and lengthy project preparation processes prevent many developing nations — not just India, but also least developed countries and small island states — from using funds that are nominally available.

Conclusion

The recurring climate finance dispute reflects an unfinished bargain at the heart of global climate action.
Until funds become genuinely additional, predominantly grant-based, and easily accessible, developing nations cannot simultaneously transform their economies and cope with escalating climate costs — making this issue central to any credible, equitable climate agreement.

Source: TH

Climate Finance FAQs

Q1: Why is climate finance for developing countries a recurring issue at UN summits?

Ans: Climate finance for developing countries remains contentious because vulnerable nations need substantial resources to address climate impacts while expanding clean energy access.

Q2: How large is the climate adaptation financing gap facing developing countries?

Ans: Climate finance for developing countries remains inadequate, with annual adaptation needs estimated at $305 billion by 2035 against public funding of just $28.2–$31.7 billion in 2024.

Q3: Why are headline figures on global climate finance considered misleading?

Ans: Climate finance for developing countries is often overstated because reported totals include loans, export credits and private investments rather than grants alone.

Q4: What was agreed upon in the 2024 Azerbaijan climate finance agreement?

Ans: The agreement committed developed countries to lead in providing $300 billion annually by 2035, alongside a broader ambition to mobilise $1.3 trillion.

Q5: What is India’s position on climate finance for developing countries?

Ans: India demands at least $1 trillion annually, primarily through grants and low-cost loans, with funding that is affordable, predictable and accessible.