Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 16 July 2026

The Supreme Court's recent examination of the scope of Article 226 writ jurisdiction in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula dispute has renewed attention on how far courts may go in reviewing decisions of constitutional bodies. With reference to the Election Commission of India, which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct position is that once an election is underway, Article 329(b) bars courts — including High Courts under Article 226 — from interfering with it; any grievance must instead be raised through an election petition filed after the poll, as settled in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978). The 'bars all courts... even outside the conduct of an election' statement overreaches — the bar applies only while an election is actually in progress, not to the Commission's other administrative or quasi-judicial functions, which remain open to writ review at other times. The 'stay an ongoing poll' statement is wrong for the same reason — that is precisely what Article 329(b) forecloses. The 'reviewed only by the Supreme Court under Article 32' statement wrongly makes Supreme Court review exclusive — the Commission's non-electoral decisions can equally be challenged before High Courts under Article 226.

The static concept

Article 329(b) — bar on judicial interference with elections in progress, remedy only via election petition; contrasted with ordinary Article 226/32 writ review of the Election Commission's other functions.

The National Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) recently approved dedicated projects for conserving river dolphins, snow leopards, Indian rhinoceroses, and wild water buffaloes. Under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, money paid by user agencies for diverting forest land is shared between the National and State/UT Compensatory Afforestation Funds in which of the following ways?

Under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, money paid by user agencies for diverting forest land is shared between the National and State/UT Compensatory Afforestation Funds in which of the following ways?

Why this answer

The correct answer is a 10:90 ratio in favour of the States — of the money user agencies pay for diverting forest land, 90% flows to the State/UT Compensatory Afforestation Fund and only 10% stays with the National Fund. The 50:50 option is wrong because the split is heavily skewed, not even. The 'Centre gets the larger share' option states the right ratio but attributes it to the wrong party — it is the States, not the Centre, that hold 90%. The 'National Fund retains everything' option is wrong on its face: the CAF Act, 2016 explicitly constitutes both a National and a State-level fund, and the States' 90% share is the whole point of the mechanism, not a separate budgetary grant.

The static concept

Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 — National and State CAMPA fund-sharing framework

Point-of-care protein biosensors — such as one developed by scientists at NIT Calicut, which detects bacterial endotoxins in blood serum within minutes to speed up sepsis diagnosis — are built around a specific immunological mechanism. Which of the following best explains how endotoxins trigger the life-threatening effects of sepsis in the human body?

Why this answer

The correct explanation is that endotoxins (lipopolysaccharides from Gram-negative bacteria) are recognised by innate immune receptors as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), which triggers an excessive, systemic cytokine release — the 'cytokine storm' — causing widespread inflammation, vascular leakage, and organ dysfunction; this is precisely why a fast biosensor-based endotoxin readout (like the NIT Calicut device) helps clinicians intervene before this cascade escalates. The 'LPS structure' statement is factually true but only describes what an endotoxin IS, not why it causes sepsis, so it does not answer the question. The 'haemolysis' statement misattributes the blood-pressure collapse to direct red-cell rupture rather than the immune-mediated cascade. The 'purely mechanical clotting, no immune role' statement is wrong because the absolute 'only/no role' framing ignores that any clotting cascade (DIC) seen in sepsis is itself triggered by the same immune-inflammatory response.

The static concept

Innate Immune Response — recognition of Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPs) by immune receptors, and the resulting cytokine-mediated inflammatory cascade underlying conditions like sepsis.

The India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) came into force on 15 July 2026. With reference to the framework of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that agreements like the India-UK CETA operate within, which one of the following statements is most accurate?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the one naming GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V as the WTO provisions that permit FTAs as an exception to MFN. The 'negative list' statement is wrong because it is PTAs that use a 'positive list' of items nominated for concession, while FTAs use a 'negative list' of excluded items — the statement wrongly assigns the same method to both. The CEPA statement is wrong because CEPAs/CECAs are deeper than a standard FTA, extending beyond goods into services, investment, IPR, and (as with the CETA's procurement chapter) government contracts — not narrower. The MFN statement is wrong because MFN's universal-extension requirement is precisely what FTAs are carved out from under Article XXIV/Article V; if it applied 'without exception', no FTA could legally offer preferential tariffs to just one partner.

The static concept

International Trade Agreements — the FTA/PTA/CECA/CEPA hierarchy and their WTO-law basis (MFN exception under GATT Article XXIV / GATS Article V).

With reference to India's renewable energy landscape and recent developments, consider the following statements:

1. 1.India's first river kinetic energy demonstration plant, a 500 kW project set up in Arunachal Pradesh in partnership with Norway's Tidal Sails AS, generates electricity from river currents without requiring major civil infrastructure.
2. 2.The India-Norway Green Strategic Partnership, under which this river kinetic energy initiative is supported, was elevated during the Prime Minister's visit to Oslo in 2021.
3. 3.The National Green Hydrogen Mission, administered by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, targets development of at least 5 Million Metric Tonnes of annual green hydrogen production capacity by 2030.
4. 4.Arunachal Pradesh's river kinetic energy plant is India's only hydrokinetic power initiative, with no other state pursuing similar in-stream turbine technology.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 1 is right: the 500 kW Arunachal Pradesh plant, built with Norway's Tidal Sails AS, draws power directly from river currents without dams or major civil works. Statement 3 is right: the National Green Hydrogen Mission does target at least 5 MMT of annual green hydrogen capacity by 2030 under MNRE. Statement 2 is wrong — the India-Norway Green Strategic Partnership was elevated during the PM's Oslo visit in May 2026, not 2021. Statement 4 is wrong — Tripura has independently launched its own hydrokinetic initiative using in-stream river turbines across identified river sites, so Arunachal Pradesh's plant is not India's only such project.

The static concept

Renewable energy technologies — hydrokinetic/river-current energy as an emerging non-solar, non-wind source; the National Green Hydrogen Mission (2023); India's bilateral Green Strategic Partnerships (e.g., India-Norway, elevated 2026).

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs recently approved railway multi-tracking projects worth ₹3,907 crore in Odisha and Jharkhand. With reference to how such items are classified in the Union Budget, consider the following pairs of Budget items and their correct classification:

1. 1.Construction cost of a new railway line (e.g., the Paradeep–Haridaspur doubling) — Capital Expenditure
2. 2.Interest payments on the Union Government's market borrowings — Capital Expenditure
3. 3.Grants-in-aid given to State Governments for creation of capital assets — Capital Expenditure
4. 4.Recovery of loans previously advanced to State Governments — Capital Receipt

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — pairs 1 and 4 are correctly matched. Pair 1 is correct: building a new railway line creates a physical asset for the Government, so its cost is Capital Expenditure. Pair 2 is wrong: interest payments are a recurring obligation that neither creates an asset nor reduces a liability, so they are Revenue Expenditure, not Capital Expenditure. Pair 3 is wrong: grants-in-aid to States for creating capital assets are booked as Revenue Expenditure in the Union Budget, because the resulting asset accrues to the State, not to the Union Government — a classic classification trap. Pair 4 is correct: recovering a loan reduces the Union Government's financial assets, which is the textbook definition of a Capital Receipt.

The static concept

Union Budget — classification of Government expenditure and receipts into Capital and Revenue heads.

With reference to the National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 (NIPU-2026) recently approved by the Union Cabinet, and India's fertiliser pricing architecture, consider the following statements:

1. 1.NIPU-2026 revises the New Investment Policy (NIP) of 2012 to attract fresh investment in domestic gas-based urea manufacturing capacity.
2. 2.NIPU-2026 fixes a guaranteed return on equity in the range of 8% to 12% for new urea production capacity.
3. 3.Under NIPU-2026, urea pricing will now be brought under the Nutrient-Based Subsidy (NBS) regime that currently governs the pricing of phosphatic and potassic (P&K) fertilisers.
4. 4.A stated objective of NIPU-2026 is to make India permanently self-reliant in urea, entirely eliminating all urea imports in every subsequent year without exception.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Only the first statement is correct. NIPU-2026, approved by the Union Cabinet, does revise the NIP-2012 framework to spur fresh domestic gas-based urea manufacturing. The return-on-equity claim is wrong: the actual band fixed under NIPU-2026 is 12%-16%, not 8%-12%. The NBS claim is wrong: urea remains outside the Nutrient-Based Subsidy scheme — its retail price is statutorily controlled under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, unlike P&K fertilisers, which are priced via NBS. The 'permanently eliminating all imports' claim is wrong: the policy's objective is to boost domestic capacity and reduce import dependence under Atmanirbhar Bharat, not an absolute, unconditional guarantee of zero imports forever.

The static concept

Fertiliser Subsidy Policy — Urea under statutory price control (Fertiliser (Control) Order) vs Nutrient-Based Subsidy (NBS) for P&K fertilisers; industrial investment policy for domestic manufacturing self-sufficiency (Atmanirbhar Bharat).

Iran's threat to block export corridors beyond the Strait of Hormuz, in response to the renewed U.S. naval blockade, has revived debate on the legal instruments WTO members invoke to justify trade-restrictive action during geopolitical conflict. With reference to WTO agreements/articles and the subject matter each actually governs, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.GATT Article XXI — Security exceptions permitting a WTO member to restrict trade to protect its essential security interests
2. 2.Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) — Simplification and harmonisation of customs and border-clearance procedures
3. 3.Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) Agreement — Direct regulation of the entry and ownership terms of foreign investment
4. 4.Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement — Imposition of anti-dumping duties on subsidised imports
5. 5.Agreement on Agriculture's 'Peace Clause' — Permanent, blanket exemption of all agricultural subsidies from dispute-settlement challenge

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

Only two pairs are correctly matched. GATT Article XXI is correctly paired: it is the WTO's genuine 'security exceptions' clause, letting a member restrict trade to protect essential security interests — exactly the legal ground states invoke during episodes like the current Hormuz/export-corridor standoff. The Trade Facilitation Agreement pair is also correct: TFA, concluded at the 2013 Bali Ministerial and in force since February 2017, is squarely about simplifying and harmonising customs and border-clearance procedures. The TRIMS pairing is wrong: the TRIMS Agreement disciplines only trade-distorting investment measures (like local-content requirements) and explicitly does NOT extend to direct regulation of an investment's entry or ownership terms — that remains a national FDI-policy domain. The SPS pairing is wrong: SPS sets food-safety and animal/plant health standards, not anti-dumping duties, which fall under the WTO's separate Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Peace Clause pairing is wrong: Article 13's 'due restraint' shields only WTO-compliant support measures from challenge, and only within defined agricultural-subsidy categories — it is not a permanent, blanket exemption for all agricultural subsidies.

The static concept

WTO Agreements and Articles — GATT Article XXI (security exceptions), TFA, TRIMS, SPS, and the Agreement on Agriculture's Peace Clause, and the precise (non-overlapping) subject matter each governs.

Why this answer

The correct answer is 'A is true, but R is false.' Assertion A is correct: the TTC (a dialogue platform for trade and technology cooperation, mirroring the analogous US-EU Trade and Technology Council) and the FTA (a binding market-access treaty concluded via a separate negotiating track earlier in 2026, alongside a Security and Defence Partnership) are institutionally distinct instruments serving different purposes — one is a cooperation forum, the other a negotiated trade pact. Reason R is false: the TTC was never the negotiating channel for the FTA; the FTA was concluded through its own dedicated trade-negotiation process, while the TTC continued in parallel as a standing dialogue on trade and technology issues, as reaffirmed at the 3rd TTC meeting in Brussels. Conflating the two — treating the TTC as though it produced the FTA — is the exact trap this question tests.

The static concept

India-EU Strategic Partnership — Trade and Technology Council (TTC) as a cooperation dialogue distinct from the negotiated Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Security and Defence Partnership tracks.

Why this answer

Both A and R are true, and R correctly explains A. Article 20(1) protects a person from conviction under a law not in force at the time of the act, and from a penalty greater than what that law prescribed — its protection is confined to penal/criminal liability, not to welfare eligibility. The RPwD Act amendment widening 'acid attack victim' to cover internal injuries from ingestion, and applying this retrospectively, only expands who qualifies for support and benefits — it creates no new offence and imposes no penalty on anyone. Since Article 20(1) is triggered only by retrospective criminal liability, a retrospective beneficial welfare provision like this one falls entirely outside its scope, so A is true for exactly the reason R states.

The static concept

Article 20(1) — Protection against retrospective (ex post facto) criminal laws, limited to conviction/penalty in penal matters, contrasted with retrospective beneficial welfare legislation such as the RPwD Act, 2016.