Introduction

The UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2026 will test not only factual knowledge but also conceptual clarity, analytical ability, and awareness of current developments. Over the past decade, the trend of the Prelims examination has shifted towards integrating static subjects with current affairs, requiring aspirants to prepare in a focused and strategic manner.

This blog post highlights the most important topics for UPSC 2026 Prelims based on previous year question analysis, emerging national and international developments, and core foundational areas that consistently carry weightage. Aspirants should use this structured outline to prioritize their revision, strengthen weak areas, and align preparation with evolving exam patterns.

1. Can a Third Party be Liable for Marital Disruption?

1. The Core Concept: “Alienation of Affection”

The liability of a third party (often a paramour) for breaking a marriage is legally known as the Tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA).

• Definition: It is a common-law civil wrong (tort) that allows a spouse to sue a third person for willfully and maliciously interfering in their marriage, leading to a loss of consortium (companionship, affection, and support).
• Legal Basis: In India, this is not a codified law (not found in the Hindu Marriage Act or BNS). Instead, it is an evolved judicial principle based on the idea that marriage is a protected legal interest.

2. Why is this in the news? (Current Context 2024-2025)

In a landmark 2024-2025 development (Shelly Mahajan v. MS Bhanushree Bahl), the Delhi High Court ruled that while adultery is no longer a crime, it does not grant third parties immunity from civil liability.

• The Ruling: The court allowed a wife to seek civil damages ($₹4$ crore) from her husband’s alleged lover.
• The Rationale: The court argued that “Personal Liberty” (under Article 21) cannot be used as a shield to intentionally harm another’s legally recognized relationship.

The Evolution: From Criminal to Civil Liability

Essential Elements to Prove Liability:

To hold a third party liable today, the plaintiff must prove:

1. Intentional Conduct: The third party actively tried to entice the spouse away.
2. Causation: The marriage broke down because of this interference, not prior issues.
3. Measurable Loss: Actual loss of affection or companionship (consortium).

UPSC Relevant Concept: Article 15(3) (Special provisions for women) and Article 21 (Right to Privacy) are the constitutional pillars used to debate this topic.

2. Uranium in Breast Milk: The Core Concept

Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive heavy metal found in the Earth’s crust. While we often associate it with nuclear power, its presence in the human body—specifically breast milk—is primarily a result of environmental contamination.

1. Pathways of Exposure

Uranium enters the human system through:

• Ingestion: Drinking groundwater contaminated by leaching from granite rocks or industrial runoff (mining).
• Inhalation: Dust from mining sites or phosphate fertilizer application in agriculture.
• Biomagnification: Accumulation in the food chain, though it does not biomagnify as heavily as mercury.

2. Why is it in Breast Milk?

Once ingested, uranium behaves like calcium in the body. It circulates in the bloodstream and can be transferred to the mammary glands. Research indicates that while the “blood-milk barrier” filters many toxins, heavy metals like uranium can permeate this barrier, especially in regions with high geogenic (natural) uranium levels in groundwater.

Why is this in the news? (Current Context)

Recent environmental health studies in India, particularly in the Malwa region of Punjab and parts of Andhra Pradesh (near mining sites like Tummalapalle), have detected alarming levels of uranium in biological samples, including breast milk and hair.

• Groundwater Crisis: High nitrate and salinity levels in Indian soil have increased the solubility of uranium, causing it to leach more easily into drinking water.
• Health Implications: For infants, exposure to uranium via breast milk is a double-edged sword. It poses a risk of nephrotoxicity (kidney damage) and potential osteotoxicity (interference with bone development) during a critical growth phase.
• WHO Standards: The World Health Organization (WHO) sets a provisional guideline of 30 µg/L for uranium in drinking water; however, there is no established “safe” limit for breast milk, making any detection a cause for scientific concern.

Comparison: Uranium vs. Other Groundwater Contaminants

3. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

The CBI is India’s premier investigating agency. It is neither a Constitutional nor a Statutory body. It was established in 1963 by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs, later transferred to the Ministry of Personnel.

1. Legal Foundation & Governance

• Power Source: It derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.
• Nodal Ministry: It functions as an attached office under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (specifically the DoPT).
• Role: Investigates cases of corruption, economic offenses, and special crimes (terrorism, sensational murders, etc.). It also serves as the National Central Bureau for INTERPOL in India.

2. Appointment of the Director

The Director of CBI has a security of tenure (minimum 2 years, extendable up to 5 years via yearly extensions). The appointment is made by a High-Powered Committee consisting of:

1. The Prime Minister (Chairperson)
2. The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or Leader of the single largest opposition party)
3. The Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI)

Why is CBI in the news? (2024–2026 Context)

The most critical current issue is the Federal Tussle over “General Consent.”

• Withdrawal of Consent: Several states (West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and recently Karnataka in late 2024) have withdrawn “General Consent” to the CBI.
• What this means: Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the CBI needs state government permission to investigate crimes within that state. “General Consent” allows seamless entry; its withdrawal means the CBI must seek “Specific Consent” for every new case.
• Judicial Intervention: In July 2024 (State of West Bengal v. Union of India), the Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of a suit by West Bengal challenging the CBI’s power to register cases despite the withdrawal of consent.
• The “Caged Parrot” Debate: In late 2024 and 2025, the SC reiterated the need for CBI to act as an “uncaged parrot,” emphasizing impartiality during high-profile political investigations.

4. Contempt of Court Act, 1971

In India, while the Constitution gives the higher judiciary the power to punish for contempt, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides the statutory framework, defining what actually constitutes “contempt.”

1. Types of Contempt

The 1971 Act categorizes contempt into two distinct types:

• Civil Contempt: Defined as “wilful disobedience” to any judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• Criminal Contempt: Any publication (words, signs, or visible representation) or act that:
  1. Scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court.
  2. Prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
  3. Obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

2. Constitutional Basis

• Article 129: Empowers the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 215: Empowers the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
• Article 142(2): Grants the SC the power to make any order for the purpose of punishing contempt.
• Article 19(2): “Contempt of Court” is a reasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)).

Why is it in the News? (2025–2026 Context)

Several high-profile developments have kept this topic at the forefront of legal debates:

1. The “Takedown Order” Debate (Wikimedia v. ANI, 2025): The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order to remove online content, warning that judges should not be “hypersensitive” to public scrutiny. It reaffirmed that public discussion is an essential safeguard of justice.
2. Legislative Immunity vs. Contempt (May 2025): The SC ruled that if a legislature passes a new law after a court order, it is not an act of contempt unless the new law is specifically declared unconstitutional.
3. Accountability of Constitutional Authorities (Feb 2026): The SC recently warned the Telangana Assembly Speaker with contempt proceedings for failing to decide on disqualification petitions (Tenth Schedule), signaling that even high offices are not immune to judicial mandates when acting as a tribunal.
4. UPSC & DGP Appointments: The SC recently (Feb 2026) empowered the UPSC to initiate contempt proceedings against states that bypass the “Prakash Singh” guidelines by appointing “Ad-hoc” DGPs instead of regular ones.

5.  Principle of Non-refoulement

The Principle of Non-refoulement (pronounced re-fool-maw) is a cornerstone of international refugee law.

• Definition: It prohibits states from returning (refouling), expelling, or extraditing a person to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution, torture, or irreparable harm based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
• Legal Standing: * Treaty Law: Enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
  • Customary International Law: It is widely considered a part of Jus Cogens (peremptory norms), meaning it is binding even on countries that have not signed the 1951 Convention (like India).
  • Human Rights Law: Implicit in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and explicitly in the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Why is this in the news? (Current Context 2025-2026)

In India, the debate often surfaces due to the lack of a domestic refugee law.

1. Chakma and Hajong Issues (2025-2026): In mid-2025 and early 2026, the Arunachal Pradesh government faced warnings from rights groups and the NHRC over the potential “racial profiling” and relocation of Chakma and Hajong communities. Any attempt to deport these communities would violate the principle of non-refoulement and a 1996 Supreme Court judgment.
2. Rohingya Deportations: The Indian government’s move to deport Rohingya refugees (classified as illegal immigrants) has been a point of contention. While India argues they are a “national security threat,” the UN and domestic activists invoke non-refoulement as Myanmar remains unsafe.
3. Judicial Stance: In Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021), the SC acknowledged that Article 21 applies to all persons (including non-citizens), but noted that the right to stay in India is subject to reasonable restrictions like national security.

6. The Immigration & Foreigners Act, 2025

The Act was enacted to modernize India’s fragmented, colonial-era immigration framework. It moves away from manual, paper-based tracking to a Digital-First, Security-Centric model.

1. Consolidation of Laws

The 2025 Act repealed and merged four major pieces of legislation into a single unified code:

• The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
• The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
• The Foreigners Act, 1946 (The primary law used for deportation for 80 years)
• The Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000

2. Key Pillars of the New Act

• Integrated Immigration Management System (IIMS): A centralized digital database that tracks the entry, stay, and exit of every foreign national. It replaces the old FRRO system.
• Mandatory Biometrics: All foreign nationals (and OCI cardholders in some cases) must provide biometric data upon arrival or during registration.
• Reporting Obligations: It shifts the burden of monitoring to the “inviting” parties.
  • Hotels/Accommodation: Must report foreign guests within 24 hours.
  • Educational Institutions: Must report foreign student admissions and attendance.
  • Hospitals: Must report foreign patient admissions, births, and deaths.
• Foreigners Tribunals (FTs): The Act grants FTs the powers of a First-Class Judicial Magistrate, allowing them to issue arrest warrants and send undocumented persons to holding centers nationwide.

Why was it in the news? (2025–2026 Context)

The Act came into force on September 1, 2025, and has remained a focal point of debate for several reasons:

1. Strict Penalties: For the first time, using a forged passport or visa carries a mandatory jail term of 2 to 7 years and fines up to ₹10 lakh.
2. National Security Overrides: Section 3 of the Act allows the government to deny entry or stay on grounds of “National Security, Sovereignty, or Public Health” without disclosing the specific intelligence, leading to debates on transparency.
3. Refugee Exemptions: Under the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, specific groups (Tibetan refugees, Sri Lankan Tamils arriving before 2015, and non-Muslim minorities from three neighbors arriving before 2024) are exempted from penal provisions, aligning the Act with the spirit of the CAA (2019).
4. Federal Tussle: Some states have raised concerns about the “Excessive Centralization” of powers, as the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) now has a direct statutory mandate to coordinate with states on identification and deportation.

7. Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018)

This case dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized adultery.

1. What was Section 497 IPC?

• The Law: It punished a man who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without the husband’s “consent or connivance.”
• Gender Bias: * Only the man was punished; the woman was treated as a “victim” and could not be an abettor.
  • The wife had no right to prosecute her husband if he had an affair.
  • The offence was “cancelled” if the husband gave his consent, effectively treating the wife as the husband’s property (chattel).

2. The Supreme Court’s Verdict

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional.

• Article 14 (Equality): The law was “manifestly arbitrary” because it discriminated against men and women based on gender stereotypes.
• Article 15 (Non-discrimination): It treated women as subordinate to men, violating the prohibition of discrimination.
• Article 21 (Dignity & Privacy): It denied women sexual autonomy and dignity by making their choices dependent on their husband’s consent.

Key Takeaway: Adultery is no longer a crime in India. It is now only a civil wrong and a valid ground for divorce.

Why was this in the news? (2024–2025 Context)

The topic resurfaced recently due to the implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and specific clarifications for the Armed Forces:

1. Exclusion from BNS: When the new criminal laws (BNS) replaced the IPC in 2024, the government did not re-include adultery. This confirmed the legislative intent to keep it decriminalized.
2. Armed Forces Exception: In 2023-2024, the Supreme Court clarified that while adultery is not a crime for civilians, the Armed Forces can still take disciplinary action against officers for “unbecoming conduct” (adultery). This is to maintain discipline in the unique environment of the military.
3. Third-Party Liability: As mentioned in your previous query, recent High Court rulings (2024) have explored if a spouse can sue the “third party” (paramour) for civil damages (Alienation of Affection), even if they can’t send them to jail.

Summary of Articles Invoked

8. Shelly Mahajan vs. MS Bhanushree Bahl (2024-2025)

The case of Shelly Mahajan vs. MS Bhanushree Bahl is a groundbreaking decision by the Delhi High Court. It clarifies the “civil” aftermath of the decriminalization of adultery.

1. The Core Concept: “Alienation of Affection” (AoA)

While the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine (2018) ruled that the state cannot jail someone for adultery, this case explores whether an individual can still be held liable for the damage caused to a marriage.

• Definition: Alienation of Affection is a Common Law Tort (a “heart-balm” action). It allows a spouse to sue a third party (the “paramour”) for willfully and maliciously interfering in the marital relationship.
• Legal Basis: It is based on the principle that marriage is a protected legal interest. Spouses have a right to “consortium”—which includes companionship, affection, and support.

2. Why was this in the news?

The Delhi High Court, in an order dated September 15, 2025, allowed a wife to maintain a civil suit seeking ₹4 crore in damages from her husband’s alleged lover.

• The Ruling: The Court held that decriminalizing adultery does not mean a third party is immune from civil consequences.
• The Distinction: While matrimonial laws (like the Hindu Marriage Act) provide remedies between spouses (e.g., divorce), they don’t address the harm caused by a third party. The court ruled that such cases fall under Civil Court jurisdiction, not Family Court.

Relation to Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018)

Aspirants often confuse these. Here is the critical distinction:

9. What is the Overbreadth Doctrine?

The Overbreadth Doctrine is a principle used by courts to invalidate a law if it is so broad that it not only restricts illegal activities but also prohibits constitutionally protected activities (like free speech).

1. The Core Logic

• The Problem: A law may have a legitimate goal (e.g., preventing fake news), but if its wording is too wide, it might “catch” innocent people or legitimate satire in its net.
• The Result: This creates a “Chilling Effect”—people stop expressing themselves entirely because they are afraid the broad law might be used against them.
• The Remedy: The Court strikes down the entire law (or the overbroad section) because it violates Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).

2. Overbreadth vs. Vagueness

These two are often used together in court, but they are different:

• Vagueness: The law is so “blurry” that a person cannot understand what is allowed and what is not. (e.g., “Do not act in an annoying manner.”)
• Overbreadth: The law is clear about what it forbids, but it forbids too much. (e.g., “All online criticism of the government is banned.”)

Why is it in the News? (2024–2026 Context)

The doctrine has been the “shield” of free speech in recent high-stakes cases:

1. The Karnataka Fake News Bill (2025)

In mid-2025, the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News Bill faced severe criticism. Legal experts and the High Court observed that the term “Fake News” was overbroad. It didn’t distinguish between a harmful lie and a harmless satire, potentially allowing the government to silence any critics.

2. Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2024–2025)

The Bombay High Court struck down the 2023 amendment to the IT Rules (which allowed a “Fact Check Unit” to label content as “fake or misleading”). The court ruled the terms were vague and overbroad, as they could be used to suppress any opinion that the government disagreed with.

3. Shreya Singhal Legacy

The parent case for this doctrine in India is Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down. The court famously said that terms like “grossly offensive” or “annoying” were overbroad because they could cover perfectly legal speech.

10. National Commission for Minorities (NCM)

The NCM was established under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. It is a statutory body, meaning it was created by an Act of Parliament (unlike the NCSC or NCST, which are Constitutional bodies).

1. Composition

• Total Members: 7 (1 Chairperson, 1 Vice-Chairperson, and 5 Members).
• Selection: All members must be from amongst the Minority Communities.
• Tenure: Each member holds office for a period of 3 years.
• Appointment: Nominated by the Central Government.

2. Who are the “Minorities”?

The Constitution of India mentions Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Articles 29 & 30) but does not define the term “Minority.” Under Section 2(c) of the NCM Act, the Central Government has notified six religious communities as national minorities:

Note: Jains were the last to be added to this list in 2014. Linguistic Minorities do not fall under the NCM’s jurisdiction; they are handled by the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities (Article 350-B).

Why was it in the news? (2025-2026 Context)

The NCM has been in the spotlight recently due to Institutional Vacancies and Federalism debates:

• “Defunct” Status (2025-2026): Reports highlighted that the NCM was operating with significant vacancies for over a year. High-profile resignations (including Chairman Iqbal Singh Lalpura in 2025) left the commission without a quorum, leading to a massive backlog of discrimination complaints (e.g., pending cases for Christians rose from 0 to over 40).
• Dalai Lama Disinformation (2024): The NCM intervened in a “foreign-led” disinformation campaign involving a doctored video of the Dalai Lama, clarifying that it was an attack on Buddhist religious sentiments.
• State-Level Minority Status: The Supreme Court (in 2023-24) observed that while the Centre notifies minorities nationally, States also have the power to notify minorities within their territory (e.g., Hindus in Mizoram or Kashmir).

Powers of NCM:

While investigating complaints, the NCM has the powers of a Civil Court:

1. Summoning witnesses and examining them on oath.
2. Discovery and production of documents.
3. Receiving evidence on affidavits.

Conclusion

We have navigated through some of the most critical legal and administrative shifts in contemporary India. From the decriminalization of personal choices (Joseph Shine) to the strengthening of institutional accountability (CBI & NCM), the common thread is clear: India is moving toward a Rights-Based Governance Model.

Whether it is the judiciary protecting free speech via the Overbreadth Doctrine or the legislature modernizing border security through the Foreigners Act 2025, these developments highlight the dynamic nature of our “Living Constitution.” For an aspirant, the key takeaway is not just the “what” (the facts), but the “why”—the underlying balance between individual liberty, social morality, and national security.

Final Takeaways for Your Revision:

• Constitutional Morality over Social Morality: Cases like Joseph Shine prove that the law now prioritizes individual dignity over age-old societal norms.
• Administrative Independence: The ongoing debates around the CBI and “General Consent” emphasize the need for institutions to be “uncaged” to maintain public trust.
• Technological Oversight: New laws like the Immigration Act 2025 show that governance is becoming increasingly digital, necessitating a parallel evolution in our understanding of privacy.