🗞️ Why in News Beyond the deep dives on the Supreme Court’s order that internet access is a fundamental right, children included, and the US waiver of Graham Act duties on buyers of Russian oil, the 18 October 2026 roundup covers the NPPA notification capping trade margins on 137 anti-cancer drugs, two FSSAI draft regulations (no added sucrose or fructose in food for infants up to six months; pesticide residue limits in tea), a Supreme Court ruling that the State is the custodian, not the owner, of temple property, a Supreme Court ruling allowing private complaints over false election affidavits, the complaints portal of the Supreme Court’s High Powered Enquiry Committee on the July protest violence, the NBA’s second benefit-sharing disbursal of October and the SSC’s “Q Vault” question bank.

NPPA Notifies a 30% Trade Margin Cap on 137 Anti-Cancer Drugs

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, “has undertaken Trade Margin Rationalisation (TMR) of 137 identified non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs in public interest”, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) said on 17 October 2026. The Gazette notification is dated 17 October 2026. The background to the policy was explained in our 9 October deep dive; what is new is the notification itself, the list of 137 drugs and the date the new prices take effect.

  • The cap: the trade margin is capped at 30% of the MRP, “in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013”.
  • The list: recommended by an Expert Committee under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), which “comprised leading oncologists, medical specialists, experts from hospitals across the country, and Government officers”. PIB adds: “This list would be updated periodically.”
  • Drugs named: Pembrolizumab, Durvalumab and Osimertinib; also immunotherapy drugs used against more than 20 types of cancer, and Denosumab, Pegfilgrastim and Bevacizumab.
  • Expected effect: the MRPs are expected to come down “by up to 70%, depending on their existing price structures”. That is an expectation, not yet an outcome.
  • When: manufacturers must inform the NPPA of the revised prices “within 7 days of publication of the Gazette notification”, and the revised prices will take effect on 9 November 2026. Retailers and hospitals must then charge and display the reduced prices, hospitals on their websites as well; consumers can check prices on the Pharma Sahi Daam app and the NPPA website.
  • Enforcement: “State Drug Controllers will take necessary steps to ensure compliance” by manufacturers, dealers including retailers, hospitals and medical institutions; manufacturers must “maintain current production and supply levels for the notified formulations”.
  • The precedent (PIB): under NPPA’s 2019 pilot TMR exercise, trade margins for 42 anti-cancer drugs were capped at 30%, after which the MRP of 526 brands of non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines “was reduced by up to 90%”.

Why it matters. The notification turns the approved policy for 137 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs into a cap with a fixed start date, backed by State enforcement and a duty to keep supplies up, and the list is meant to grow, since it “would be updated periodically”.

📌 Facts Corner

  • NPPA: under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers; notification dated 17 October 2026.
  • Trade margin on 137 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs capped at 30% of MRP, under Paragraph 19, DPCO 2013.
  • Revised prices take effect on 9 November 2026; price check on the Pharma Sahi Daam app.

FSSAI Draft Would Bar Added Sucrose and Fructose in Food for Infants Up to Six Months

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) “has published a draft amendment to the Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Regulations, 2020, proposing to prohibit the addition of sucrose and fructose in food products intended for infants up to six months of age”, PIB said on 17 October 2026. The draft Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Amendment Regulations, 2026 was published in the Gazette of India on 16 October 2026.

  • The proposed text: “sucrose and fructose shall not be added in the products intended for infants up to the age of 6 months”.
  • The rule today: the 2020 Regulations cover products “from birth up to 24 months of age”; “lactose and glucose polymers are the preferred sources of carbohydrates, while sucrose and/or fructose may be added only when required as a carbohydrate source, subject to prescribed limits”.
  • Aim: to minimise infants’ exposure to added sugars; PIB presents the proposal as complementing exclusive breastfeeding during the first six months of life.
  • Status: a draft. Objections and suggestions may be sent “within 60 days from the date on which copies of the Official Gazette containing the notification are made available to the public”, and they “will be considered by FSSAI before finalisation”.

Why it matters. For the youngest infants, the draft would turn “may be added only when required” into “shall not be added”. It binds only once FSSAI has considered the objections and finalised it.

📌 Facts Corner

  • Parent rules: FSS (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Regulations, 2020, covering products from birth to 24 months.
  • Draft: no added sucrose or fructose in products for infants up to 6 months; Gazette 16 October 2026; 60 days for objections.
  • Preferred carbohydrate sources under the 2020 rules: lactose and glucose polymers.

FSSAI Proposes Pesticide Residue Limits for Acetamiprid and Imidacloprid in Tea

FSSAI’s draft Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Amendment Regulations, 2026, published in the Gazette of India on 16 October 2026 (PIB, 17 October), propose Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) of 20 mg/kg (20 ppm) for acetamiprid and 50 mg/kg (50 ppm) for imidacloprid in tea, “subject to finalisation of the draft regulations”.

  • What an MRL is: MRLs “specify the maximum legally permitted concentration of pesticide residues in food commodities”, set on the basis of scientific assessments.
  • The benchmarks: the proposed 20 ppm for acetamiprid “is lower than the corresponding limits of 30 ppm in Japan and 50 ppm in the United States of America”; the imidacloprid limit “has also been formulated with reference to international Codex standards”.
  • Earlier steps the release recalls: a review of MRLs under the FSS (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Amendment Regulations, 2024, and, among earlier measures, the “delisting of 13 pesticides identified as having higher toxicity”.
  • PIB’s context: India’s average pesticide use is put at “less than 0.5 kg per hectare”, against an “estimated global average of 2.38 kg per hectare”.

Why it matters. MRLs, in the release’s words, “provide a measurable regulatory basis for monitoring pesticide residues”; it measures the acetamiprid figure against Japan and the US and the imidacloprid figure against Codex. Both figures are proposals until the draft is finalised.

📌 Facts Corner

  • MRL: the maximum legally permitted concentration of pesticide residues in a food commodity.
  • Draft limits in tea: acetamiprid 20 ppm (lower than Japan’s 30 and the US’s 50); imidacloprid 50 ppm (with reference to Codex).
  • Parent rules: FSS (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations; the 2026 amendment is a draft.

Supreme Court: The State Is the Custodian, Not the Owner, of Temple Property

The Supreme Court held on 16 October 2026 that the transfer of land belonging to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Tamil Nadu’s Erode district to the State government for the construction of a Taluk Office was illegal, Bar & Bench reported. The case is K. Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 1144), decided by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.

  • The transfer: a temporary trustee of the temple executed a gift deed in August 2017 transferring the land to the Tamil Nadu government.
  • The law: the land was inam property “granted for the support and maintenance of the deity”, so “Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, expressly prohibited its transfer by way of gift” (Bar & Bench). In Verdictum’s summary, the Court held such a gift “void from the start under Section 41(1)” of the Act.
  • The principle: the State is a custodian and regulator of temple property, not its owner. As reported by Bar & Bench, the Court said: “The State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp, nor permit any of its officers to usurp, the property of the religious/charitable institutions it is charged to protect”.
  • The relief: the Taluk Office was not removed. The rent was raised from Rs 13,235 to Rs 31,000, payable retrospectively from 8 March 2019, to be revised every three years, with arrears to be paid within three months; the State must also pay costs of Rs 1 lakh to the temple within eight weeks.
  • Earlier ruling: the Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment that had dismissed the writ petition.

Why it matters. The ruling separates protecting a religious institution’s property from taking it. A transfer the statute forbids is void even when the land serves a public office, and the remedy here was a higher rent and costs paid to the temple rather than removal of the office.

📌 Facts Corner

  • K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 1144; Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe.
  • Gift of inam temple land barred by Section 41, TN Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
  • Trap: the gift was void, but the Taluk Office stays, at a higher rent of Rs 31,000.

Supreme Court: Private Complaints Allowed Over False Election Affidavits

The Supreme Court held on 16 October 2026 “that private citizens can file criminal complaints against elected candidates for furnishing false information or concealing material facts in election affidavits under the Representation of the People (RoP) Act”, PTI reported. In Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldal (2026 INSC 1138; PTI spells the name Beldale), Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said: “We hold that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125A of the RoP Act need not pass muster of the rigours of Section 195 CrPC as held by the High Court.”

  • Section 125A, as PTI describes it: it “penalises candidates for providing false information, concealing details or failing to make mandatory disclosures in their nomination papers or accompanying affidavits”.
  • The case: an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment of 7 March 2025 that quashed Madki’s complaint against Shailendra Beldale, MLA from Bidar. The complaint, filed under Section 200 CrPC before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleged a false residential address in his 2023 Assembly nomination affidavit.
  • The reasoning: Section 125A is not named in Section 195 CrPC, and, PTI reports, the judgment said this omission must be treated as deliberate.
  • The outcome: “despite settling the legal question in favour of the maintainability of private complaints, the Supreme Court declined to revive the proceedings against Beldale” (PTI). The law point is settled; the complaint in this case stays quashed.

Why it matters. The ruling means a complaint over a false or incomplete nomination affidavit can come from a private citizen and need not meet the Section 195 CrPC test the High Court had applied.

📌 Facts Corner

  • Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldal, 2026 INSC 1138; Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu.
  • A private complaint under Section 125A, RoP Act need not meet the rigours of Section 195 CrPC.
  • Trap: the law point went to the appellant, but the proceedings against the MLA were not revived.

Supreme Court’s Enquiry Committee on the July Protest Violence Opens a Portal

A High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted by the Supreme Court has launched a portal, hpec.nic.in, a release issued through PIB (Ministry of Home Affairs) by its Member Secretary, Srinivasa Kammath, said on 17 October 2026. The Court constituted the HPEC “to enquire into all aspects of the incidents relating to violence at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, and at places outside Delhi, during the month of July 2026.”

  • Mandate: set by the Court’s orders, as the release cites them: paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order dated 18 August 2026, and paragraph 5(i) of the order dated 10 September 2026.
  • Priority areas: “use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protestors, and excessive violence and destruction of property occasioned on either side”.
  • Confidentiality: the portal is designed “to keep the identities confidential and undisclosed, if so wished”. Information can also be given in person at Shiksha Sadan, 17 Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi, from 2 pm to 4 pm on working days.
  • Who sits on it: a five-member committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy, with Ravi Shankar Jha (former Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court), Shalinder Kaur (former Delhi High Court judge), Rishi Kumar Shukla (former CBI Director) and L.R. Bishnoi (retired DGP, Meghalaya). It was formed by a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, as reported by DT Next and Onmanorama on 20 August 2026.
  • Context: the order concerns the protests in and around Jantar Mantar against the alleged NEET-UG paper leak (The Tribune). An IANS report in The Hans India adds that the Chief Justice kept the larger constitutional questions on facial recognition, surveillance and privacy with the Court. For the Court’s order on the right to protest in a separate case, the 10 October protests against the Chief Election Commissioner, see our 11 October deep dive.

Why it matters. The HPEC is a fact-finding body, and its terms cover violence “on either side”. It has made no findings yet; the portal is a step in collecting complaints and evidence.

📌 Facts Corner

  • HPEC: five members, chaired by former SC judge R. Subhash Reddy; portal hpec.nic.in.
  • Remit: violence at Jantar Mantar and outside Delhi in July 2026, including use of pellet guns.
  • Trap: the committee has no findings yet; its remit covers violence on either side.

NBA Shares Rs 1.19 Crore of Benefit-Sharing Money From Agricultural Resources

The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) “has disbursed Rs 1.19 crore under the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) mechanism to 29 State Biodiversity Boards and one Union Territory Biodiversity Council”, PIB announced on 17 October 2026. For context, this is a second, separate disbursal: the one announced on 10 October (Rs 2.02 crore, from seed-sector companies) was in our 12 October roundup.

  • Where the money comes from: “ABS contributions received from companies for research and commercial utilisation of agricultural biological resources”, including maize, rice, pearl millet and cotton.
  • How it was shared: the resources were procured through markets or traders, so “individual benefit claimers could not be readily identified”; allocations were made in proportion to the estimated cultivation area of each crop, using the Unified Portal for Agricultural Statistics.
  • Top five recipients: Maharashtra Rs 19,46,149; Rajasthan Rs 13,97,525; Madhya Pradesh Rs 13,32,250; Karnataka Rs 10,49,957; Telangana Rs 9,55,754.
  • Use of the money: “exclusively for activities specified under Section 32(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002”, such as documentation, conservation and sustainable use, local biodiversity governance, research, capacity building and community livelihoods.
  • Running total (PIB): the NBA has disbursed Rs 86 crore realised from the agriculture sector and more than Rs 203 crore overall.
  • Next: COP 17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity is scheduled for 19 to 30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.

Why it matters. When individual benefit claimers cannot be identified, as with crops bought through markets or traders, the NBA shares the money among the States by each crop’s cultivation area, and the boards must spend it only on Section 32(2) activities.

📌 Facts Corner

  • ABS: Rs 1.19 crore to 29 State Biodiversity Boards and 1 UT Biodiversity Council; from agricultural resources.
  • Funds to be used only for activities under Section 32(2), Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
  • CBD COP 17: scheduled 19 to 30 October 2026, Yerevan, Armenia.

SSC’s “Q Vault” Question Bank and the Fight Against Paper Leaks

An Explained piece in The Indian Express on 18 October 2026 reports that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) “has already been using a question-bank system called ‘Q Vault’ for the past five years, through which it has maintained a record of zero paper leaks over this period”, according to senior SSC officials. The zero-leak record is the Commission’s own account, not an independent finding.

  • How it works, as officials describe it: “creation of a large question bank, a large pool of questions, the elimination of printed question papers and the generation of question papers minutes before the examination”.
  • The bank: “between one lakh and two lakh questions”. The paper is assembled from the vault and encrypted shortly before the exam (4.45 pm for a 5 pm exam, in the IE account), sent to about 200 centres, and opened when candidates log in.
  • The scale: computer-based tests for “about a dozen recruitment examinations every year across more than 200 centres in around 140 cities”, spread over 300 shifts.
  • The institution: the SSC “falls under the Central government’s Department of Personnel and Training” (IE).
  • The law: the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 targets unfair means in public examinations; PRS’s summary of the Bill listed the Staff Selection Commission among the authorities it covers.
  • The debate: IE notes that the High-Powered Task Force headed by Nandan Nilekani, set up after the NEET-UG paper leak, suggested a question bank. For background, see our 10 October report on the parliamentary committee’s NTA review.

Why it matters. A paper generated from a large bank minutes before the exam takes the printed paper out of the chain. Whether the model suits examinations of other sizes and formats is the question the reform debate now faces.

📌 Facts Corner

  • SSC falls under the Department of Personnel and Training (IE); question bank called Q Vault.
  • Q Vault: 1 to 2 lakh questions; no printed papers; papers generated minutes before the exam.
  • Trap: “zero leaks in five years” is SSC officials’ claim to IE, not an independent audit.

UPSC Relevance

GS Paper 2. Health: drug pricing and the NPPA; statutory bodies (FSSAI, NBA); fundamental rights and religious endowments; electoral law (Section 125A of the RoP Act, election affidavits); Supreme Court-appointed committees; recruitment bodies and examination integrity (SSC). GS Paper 3. Food safety and pesticide residues; biodiversity conservation and access and benefit sharing; pricing of essential medicines. Prelims. DPCO 2013 Paragraph 19, the Pharma Sahi Daam app, the FSS infant nutrition and residue regulations, MRLs, Section 41 of the TN HR&CE Act, Section 125A and Section 195 CrPC, Section 32(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, CBD COP 17.

📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia

Prelims, statement-ready facts:

  • NPPA notification (17 October 2026): trade margin on 137 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs capped at 30% of MRP, under Para 19, DPCO 2013.
  • FSSAI draft (16 October 2026): no added sucrose or fructose in products for infants up to 6 months; 60 days for objections.
  • FSSAI draft MRLs in tea: acetamiprid 20 ppm, imidacloprid 50 ppm (Codex reference).
  • K. Ramalingam (2026 INSC 1144): gift of inam temple land void under Section 41, TN HR&CE Act, 1959.
  • Rajkumar Madki (2026 INSC 1138): private complaint under Section 125A, RoP Act maintainable without Section 195 CrPC.
  • NBA: Rs 1.19 crore of ABS money to 29 SBBs + 1 UT council; use under Section 32(2), Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Prelims, the traps:

  • Both FSSAI measures are drafts, not final rules; the tea limits are proposals.
  • The NPPA cap takes effect on 9 November 2026; PIB puts the 2019 pilot’s MRP cut at “up to 90%”.
  • In the temple case, the gift was void but the Taluk Office stays, at a higher rent.
  • In the affidavit case, the law point was settled but the proceedings against the MLA were not revived.
  • The HPEC has made no findings; “zero leaks” is SSC officials’ claim.

Mains, arguments and keywords:

  • Affordable medicines: trade margin rationalisation, non-scheduled drugs, State enforcement, supply continuity.
  • Accountability: the State as custodian of religious property; disclosure and criminal law in elections; fact-finding on protest violence.

Interview, be ready for:

  • “Should price control move from caps on margins to caps on prices for life-saving drugs?” Weigh affordability against supply, as PIB’s production-level condition shows.

Sources: PIB, NPPA Trade Margin Rationalisation of 137 anti-cancer drugs, 17 October 2026, PIB, FSSAI draft on infant nutrition (sucrose and fructose), 17 October 2026, PIB, FSSAI draft MRLs for acetamiprid and imidacloprid in tea, 17 October 2026, The Hindu (print), Bindu Shajan Perappadan, 18 October 2026, Bar & Bench, State can’t take ownership of temple properties through gift deed: Supreme Court, 17 October 2026, Verdictum, weekly round-up of Supreme Court judgments, 12 to 16 October 2026, PTI in Telangana Today, Supreme Court clarifies legal route for complaints against elected candidates, 16 October 2026, PIB, HPEC portal, 17 October 2026, background reports by DT Next and Onmanorama, 20 August 2026, The Tribune, IANS in The Hans India, 17 October 2026, PIB, NBA disburses Rs 1.19 crore under ABS, 17 October 2026, The Indian Express, Explained, SSC’s Q Vault system, 18 October 2026, PRS Legislative Research, Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, bill summary.

Source: Current Affairs Today 18 October 2026: UPSC News Roundup — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs