CURRENT AFFAIRS | 9 JUNE 2026
9 June 2026 — Tuesday’s newsroom for CLAT 2027 aspirants. Below is one of ten passage-led current-affairs explainers built on India’s constitutional, statutory and policy framework.
Constitutional & Statutory Framework
- India-Oman CEPA — Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, effective 1 June 2026.
- Article 253 — Parliament’s power to legislate for implementing international treaties and agreements.
- Article 73 — extent of Union executive power, including the treaty-making prerogative.
- GATT 1994 / WTO — multilateral framework for trade in goods.
- Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle — equal treatment of trading partners (Art. I, GATT).
- National Treatment — non-discrimination between imported and domestic goods once tariffs are paid (Art. III, GATT).
- Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Model 2026 — new Indian template: 2-year local-remedy requirement, no MFN, tax exclusion.
- ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) — arbitration mechanism in older BITs.
With the India-Oman Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) taking effect on 1 June 2026, India’s Free Trade Agreement network now covers 15 deals and 27 countries — and is on course to expand to 24 deals and 69 countries once nine in-progress negotiations close, potentially absorbing nearly 75% of India’s exports. Writing in The Indian Express editorial pages of 9 June 2026, Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), argues that four recurring structural problems must now be tackled head-on.
The first is the persistent rise in trade deficits with FTA partners. Between 2007-09 (immediately before the wave of FTAs took effect) and 2022-25, India’s trade deficit with ASEAN grew by roughly $48.6 billion. Deficits with Japan and South Korea ballooned far faster than with non-FTA partners. Across the past three years, India’s annual deficit with ASEAN, Japan and South Korea combined has averaged around $62 billion; in FY 2025-26, India’s exports to all FTA partners stood at $100 billion against imports of around $150 billion.
The second concern is utilisation. Indian exporters under-use the tariff preferences negotiated for them, often because of complex Rules of Origin documentation, lack of awareness, and the fact that the tariff differential is often slim. The third is the worsening of India’s inverted-duty structure: cases where finished imports attract lower duty than their input components, making domestic manufacturing relatively uncompetitive — a problem that several FTAs have aggravated rather than solved.
The fourth is the relocation effect — manufacturing migrating to FTA-partner geographies that offer cheaper inputs and zero-duty access to the Indian market. The asymmetry is sharp: while almost all imports enter Singapore duty-free under MFN rules, and more than 80% do so in Japan and Malaysia, only about 6% of imports into India enter duty-free under MFN treatment. India’s applied MFN tariffs remain among the highest of G20 economies.
Alongside the trade-agreement push, the Centre is rolling out a New Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Model. Three features stand out: a minimum two-year local-remedies requirement before an investor can move to international arbitration, the dropping of any Most-Favoured-Nation clause from investment-protection provisions, and the express exclusion of tax-related disputes from treaty cover. The model is a clear retreat from the open ISDS architecture of pre-2016 BITs that produced the White Industries and Vodafone-style arbitration losses.
Constitutionally, all of this sits inside the framework of Article 73 (Union executive power, including treaty-making) and Article 253 (Parliament’s exclusive competence to legislate for implementing international agreements, overriding the State List if necessary). India is a dualist jurisdiction: a treaty becomes enforceable domestically only when Parliament enacts implementing legislation — a feature explored by the Supreme Court in cases from Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel (1969) through Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
Key Facts at a Glance
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Agreement | India-Oman CEPA, effective 1 June 2026 |
| India’s FTA count | 15 FTAs covering 27 countries; 9 more under negotiation (42 more countries) |
| Trade deficit trend | ASEAN deficit grew $48.6 bn (2007-09 → 2022-25); ~$62 bn/yr avg with ASEAN+Japan+S. Korea |
| FY 2025-26 FTA trade | $100 bn exports vs ~$150 bn imports; deficit > $50 bn |
| MFN duty-free share | Singapore ~100% / Japan & Malaysia >80% / EU & UK >50% / India ~6% |
| New BIT Model | 2-year local-remedy gate; no MFN; tax disputes excluded |
| Author | Ajay Srivastava, founder GTRI; Indian Express, 9 June 2026 |
CLAT 2027 Angle
Article 253 (Parliament’s power to implement international treaties); Article 73 (treaty-making prerogative of the Union Executive); GATT 1994 + WTO regime; Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN); National Treatment; Investor-State Dispute Settlement vs the New BIT Model; impact of FTAs on Make in India and the inverted-duty structure. Expect Current Affairs questions on India’s FTA count and the new BIT features, and a GK pairing on Art. 253 + dualist treaty-implementation jurisprudence.
Mnemonic — Memory Aid
“15-27-69” — India’s FTA arithmetic at a glance: 15 FTAs in force, covering 27 countries today, expanding to 69 countries when the nine ongoing negotiations close. Pair with “MFN-NT-ISDS” — the three WTO/BIT pillars: Most-Favoured-Nation (no discrimination between partners), National Treatment (no discrimination between foreign and domestic goods), Investor-State Dispute Settlement (the door India is now narrowing). For the Constitution thread: “73-253” — Union executive’s treaty-making power followed by Parliament’s implementing-legislation power.
Test Yourself — 10-Question Quiz
Take the interactive quiz below to reinforce these concepts:
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
