Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 27 May 2026

With reference to the joint military exercise 'TIGER TRIUMPH-24', conducted in March 2024, which of the following best describes its primary objective?

Why this answer

TIGER TRIUMPH-24, the India-Singapore joint military exercise conducted in March 2024, was specifically designed to enhance interoperability and coordination capabilities for conducting Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations, reflecting both nations' commitment to civilian disaster management and response in the Indo-Pacific region. The option describing counter-terrorism and anti-insurgency tactics in semi-urban terrain misrepresents the exercise's actual focus, which centered on disaster response coordination rather than counter-insurgency or combat operations. The option regarding anti-piracy and anti-smuggling communication protocols, while relevant to broader maritime security cooperation, was not the primary objective of TIGER TRIUMPH-24. The option about integrated deployment of fighter aircraft and air defence systems in a simulated conflict scenario is incorrect because TIGER TRIUMPH-24 was fundamentally a humanitarian disaster relief exercise, not a combat warfare simulation or air superiority exercise.

The static concept

India's Joint Military Exercises and Bilateral Defence Cooperation, particularly with the United States as part of the growing strategic partnership.

In light of recent debates concerning hate speech and regulation of online content, which of the following statements most accurately reflects the constitutional position on the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) in India?

Why this answer

The statement that the right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law on grounds explicitly enumerated in Article 19(2), the reasonableness of which is justiciable, correctly reflects the constitutional position on Article 19(1)(a). The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed but not absolute; it is subject to reasonable restrictions enumerated in Article 19(2) on eight grounds: security of the State, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to offence, and sovereignty/integrity of India. Crucially, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of reasonable restrictions, making the *reasonableness* of any restriction judicially reviewable. Claims that the right is absolute and cannot be curtailed, that restrictions can be imposed for 'national interest' reasons even if not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, or that the judiciary is barred from reviewing reasonableness, all misrepresent established doctrine. This answer encapsulates settled constitutional law governing this fundamental right.

The static concept

Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression, and the Doctrine of Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2).

In light of various judicial interpretations and the frequent use of internet shutdowns, which of the following statements most accurately reflects the constitutional position of the 'right to access the internet' in India?

Why this answer

The Supreme Court, notably in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2022), has held that the right to internet access is derived from and essential to exercising Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 19(1)(g) (freedom of profession), not a standalone fundamental right. It is therefore subject to the reasonable restrictions enumerated in Article 19(2) and 19(6). Internet shutdowns can be imposed if they meet the statutory tests for reasonableness. The claim that it is an absolute Fundamental Right under Article 21 is incorrect because the right is not absolute; characterizing it as merely a legal right under the Information Technology Act overlooks its constitutional foundation; and no separate constitutional amendment has created it as an explicit Fundamental Right.

The static concept

Article 19 - Protection of Certain Rights regarding Freedom of Speech, etc., and its judicial interpretation in the digital age.

In the context of recent judicial discourse on personal liberties, which of the following statements most accurately reflects the constitutional position regarding the 'right to marry' in India?

Why this answer

The Supreme Court has recognized the choice of a life partner as integral to personal liberty under Article 21, grounded in privacy jurisprudence established by K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which confirmed that intimate autonomy receives constitutional protection. However, while the choice itself is fundamental, the statutory regulation of marriage—through Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act—remains constitutionally valid for matters of form, procedure, and validity conditions. The claim that marriage overrides "all statutory limitations" overstates the position: statutory barriers preventing consenting adults from marrying are constitutionally suspect, but procedural and formal regulation is permissible. Restricting marriage to Article 25 (freedom of religion) alone is too narrow, as it ignores the civil dimensions under Articles 14 and 21. Finally, marriage is not a Directive Principle of State Policy; it does not appear in Part IV of the Constitution.

The static concept

Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Its judicial expansion to include the right to dignity, privacy, and the choice of a life partner.

With reference to the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), consider the following statements:

1. 1.The PCA framework is triggered when a bank breaches prescribed thresholds for key indicators like Capital to Risk-weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR) and Net Non-Performing Asset (NNPA) ratio.
2. 2.The revised framework is applicable to all Scheduled Commercial Banks, Co-operative Banks, and Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) without exception.
3. 3.Once a bank is placed under PCA, it faces mandatory and discretionary restrictions which may include curbs on dividend distribution and branch expansion.
4. 4.The decision to place a bank under the PCA framework is taken by the Ministry of Finance based on the recommendations of the RBI.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Statement 1 is correct — the revised PCA framework (effective 1 Jan 2022) uses Capital (CRAR/CET1), Asset Quality (Net NPA ratio), and Leverage as the three key indicators, with breaches of prescribed thresholds triggering invocation. Statement 2 is incorrect — the phrase 'without exception' overstates the scope. PCA for SCBs explicitly excludes Small Finance Banks, Payments Banks and RRBs; Urban Co-operative Banks are governed by a separate Supervisory Action Framework (SAF), not PCA; and although RBI extended a PCA framework to NBFCs from 1 Oct 2022, it covers only specified middle/upper/top-layer deposit-taking and non-deposit-taking NBFCs, with Government NBFCs, HFCs and several other categories excluded. Statement 3 is correct — banks under PCA face mandatory restrictions (e.g., on dividend distribution/remittance of profits, branch expansion, management compensation) and discretionary actions (e.g., curbs on lending, special audits, resolution actions) calibrated to the breached risk threshold. Statement 4 is incorrect — PCA is a supervisory tool of the RBI and the decision to invoke it rests with the RBI itself as the banking regulator, not the Ministry of Finance. Hence only Statements 1 and 3 are correct.

The static concept

Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) Framework: A supervisory tool of the RBI to monitor and intervene in banks that are undercapitalised or financially weak, based on triggers like CAR, NPAs, and leverage.