Polity and governanceThe Hindu, Page 1GS2GS1Must read
On 4 November 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that laws penalising citizens for having more than two children have lost their relevance, and asked for its 2003 judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. The appeal was filed by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra. She was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which since 2000 bars a person with more than two children from panchayat office. The Additional Collector disqualified her, the Additional Commissioner of Amravati Division rejected her appeal, and the Bombay High Court upheld the order on 5 August 2025. The Supreme Court allowed her to continue in office, with the proceedings stayed until the larger Bench decides.
Prelims facts
- On 4 November 2026 a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe referred Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) to a larger Bench for reconsideration.
- The case arose from a sarpanch's disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, for having more than two children.
- The Court noted India's TFR fell from about 3 in 2003 to 1.9, below the replacement level of 2.1.
- The Court tied reproductive decisions to personal liberty under Article 21; a two-judge Bench cannot overrule a three-judge ruling, hence the reference.
- Six States still retain such bars for local bodies: Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttarakhand.
Read the full story, model answer and deep dive
EconomyThe Hindu, Page 10GS2GS3
On 4 November 2026, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Surya Kant answered a reference pending since 1999 in Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha. The question was whether a State legislature could impose a surcharge, additional tax or cess calculated on the sales tax already payable. The challenge was to Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, which made every dealer with a gross turnover above ₹10 lakh pay a surcharge of ten per cent of the total tax payable. The Court held that the reference had become infructuous (no longer needing a decision), and that the question of State competence is governed by S. Kodar v. State of Kerala (1974), which it said continues to hold the field. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, concurring, said Kodar was correctly decided and remains good law.
Prelims facts
- On 4 November 2026 a seven-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant held the Arjun Flour Mills reference infructuous and said S. Kodar (1974) governs State competence.
- Section 5-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 levied a surcharge of ten per cent of tax payable on dealers with gross turnover above ₹10 lakh.
- The apparent conflict came from India Cement (1990), whose premise that royalty is a tax was overruled by the nine-judge MADA ruling in 2024.
- The 101st Amendment (2016) inserted Article 246A for GST and narrowed Entry 54 of List II to petroleum products and alcoholic liquor.
- Questions on Punjab's surcharge on exempt units and its social security cess under Article 266 were left open for regular Benches.
Read the full story, model answer and deep dive
Society, justice and ethicsThe Hindu, Page 12GS2GS1Must read
On 4 November 2026, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi approved continuing the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), including exclusive POCSO courts, for five more years, from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031. The total outlay is ₹3,788.04 crore. The Central share of ₹2,353.15 crore will come from the Nirbhaya Fund, and States and Union Territories will bear ₹1,434.89 crore. The scheme exists to speed up trials of rape cases and of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Each FTSC is staffed by one judicial officer, one dedicated special public prosecutor and six support staff.
Prelims facts
- On 4 November 2026 the Cabinet extended the FTSC scheme from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031 with an outlay of ₹3,788.04 crore.
- The Central share of ₹2,353.15 crore comes from the Nirbhaya Fund; States and UTs bear ₹1,434.89 crore.
- 779 FTSCs, including 399 exclusive POCSO courts, are functional in 29 States and UTs and have disposed of 4,02,457 cases; the target is 850 courts.
- The scheme began on 2 October 2019 after the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 and a Supreme Court suo motu direction of 25 July 2019.
- Each FTSC has one judicial officer, one special public prosecutor and six support staff.
Read the full story, model answer and deep dive
Society, justice and ethicsThe Hindu, Lead article (Page 6)GS2GS3
A lead article in The Hindu on 5 November 2026, titled "Anaemia burden: iron alone is no solution", questions proposals to scale up double-fortified salt (DFS), which carries both iodine and iron, as a national answer to anaemia. Anaemia is a shortage of red blood cells or haemoglobin that reduces the oxygen reaching the body's tissues. The burden is not in doubt: the fifth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21) found 67.1% of children aged 6 to 59 months, 57% of women aged 15 to 49 and 52.2% of pregnant women anaemic, all higher than in NFHS-4 (2015-16), when the figure for young children was 58.6%. The article accepts the case made for DFS: salt is eaten daily by almost everyone, needs no change in behaviour, and iodised salt has been a public health success.
Prelims facts
- NFHS-5 (2019-21) found 67.1% of children aged 6 to 59 months and 57% of women aged 15 to 49 anaemic, up from 58.6% and 53.1% in NFHS-4.
- Double-fortified salt carries both iodine and iron; the op-ed argues it should be piloted with monitoring before any national rollout.
- Non-haem iron absorption is reduced by phytates, polyphenols (tea), calcium and by hepcidin during infection; vitamin C improves it.
- People with thalassaemia or sickle cell disease are at risk of iron overload, which complicates universal iron fortification.
- Anaemia Mukt Bharat, launched in 2018, followed a 6x6x6 strategy of beneficiary groups, interventions and institutional mechanisms.
Read the full story, model answer and deep dive
Environment and geographyThe Hindu, Opinion (Page 6)GS3GS2
An op-ed in The Hindu on 5 November 2026 asks what the BRICS Carbon Markets Partnership should do next. The New Delhi Declaration, adopted at the 18th BRICS Summit on 12 September 2026, said members look forward to implementing the Memorandum of Understanding on the partnership, and supported capacity building and exchange of experience on carbon markets. The partnership was first agreed in 2024, under Russia's chairship. The op-ed notes that it still has no trading framework, targets or timeline, and argues that its first deliverable should be a common rulebook for measuring and recognising emission reductions, not a joint trading platform. A carbon market lets emitters buy and sell permits or credits, each usually representing one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Prelims facts
- The New Delhi Declaration of the 18th BRICS Summit (12 September 2026) looked forward to implementing the MoU on the BRICS Carbon Markets Partnership.
- The op-ed argues the partnership should first agree common MRV rules and mutual recognition of verifiers, then run a small Article 6.2 pilot.
- The EU CBAM's definitive phase began on 1 January 2026; the UK's CBAM starts on 1 January 2027.
- China and India use emission-intensity benchmarks, while Brazil plans an absolute cap; no BRICS carbon market is linked to another.
- Under Article 6.2, a country transferring emission reductions must make a corresponding adjustment so the same tonne is not counted twice.
Read the full story, model answer and deep dive