Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 24 July 2026

The Supreme Court's recent order for a fresh trial in a death-row case, citing the denial of legal representation as a fundamental flaw in the original proceedings, has renewed attention on an arrested person's right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. Under the Constitution of India, this right is guaranteed as:

Why this answer

The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice is explicitly guaranteed as a Fundamental Right under Article 22(1) — it applies from the moment of arrest. This is different from Article 39A, a Directive Principle that obliges the State to provide free legal aid so that economic disability does not deny access to justice; that is a State obligation for aid, not the arrested person's own choice-of-counsel right. The claim that this protection sits in Article 21 'alone' is wrong because Article 22(1) names it specifically. The claim that it comes only from the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is also wrong — that 1987 Act institutionalised legal aid machinery, but the right to counsel itself is constitutionally guaranteed, not merely statutory.

The static concept

Article 22(1) — Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice, distinct from the Article 39A Directive Principle on free legal aid.

The pendency of criminal cases against sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) has recently drawn renewed attention. With reference to the Supreme Court's directions on this issue, which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the one describing the monitoring mechanism: following the Supreme Court's November 2023 directives, each High Court registers a suo motu case ("In Re: Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs") to track disposal of pending cases, with the Supreme Court retaining overall supervisory oversight. The 'uniform timeline' statement is wrong — the Court explicitly held that no uniform timeline can be prescribed because the situation differs from State to State. The 'withdrawal without judicial concurrence' statement is wrong — since the Court's 2021 ruling, a case against an MP or MLA can be withdrawn only with the concerned High Court's consent. The 'only while holding post' statement is wrong — the Special Courts have jurisdiction over offences committed by a person irrespective of whether they were a sitting or former legislator at the time of the offence.

The static concept

Judiciary: Structure & Accountability — Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction and the suo motu High Court mechanism for expediting criminal trials against MPs/MLAs.

The FSSAI's regulatory framework for children's food environments has drawn renewed attention after an ICMR-NIN-led consortium recommended further measures against unhealthy food marketing. Which of the following most accurately describes an existing, mandatory provision under the FSSAI's school food regulations?

Why this answer

The correct description is the 50-metre HFSS sale/advertising ban with a mandatory warning board — this is precisely what the Food Safety and Standards (Safe Food and Balanced Diets for Children in School) Regulations, 2020 require, in force since 1 July 2021. The 100-metre option overstates the actual buffer, which is 50 metres. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling is currently only a policy recommendation from the ICMR-NIN 'Let's Fix Our Food' consortium (July 2026) — it is not yet a binding FSSAI mandate on all packaged foods, so that option is false. The 'below 14 years, Right to Education Act' option is wrong on two counts: FSSAI's Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020 define 'child' as under 18 years per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, not under 14 per the RTE Act.

The static concept

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — FSSAI's regulatory mandate over child nutrition, operationalised through the Safe Food and Balanced Diets for Children in School Regulations, 2020.

India's position on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), reiterated in its recent statements at the UN Security Council linking treaty cooperation to cross-border terrorism, is most accurately described by which of the following?

Why this answer

India has placed the IWT 'in abeyance' and is pushing for its review and renegotiation — it has not invoked Article XII, which requires a duly ratified treaty between both governments to formally terminate the IWT, so a unilateral 'termination' claim is wrong. India has explicitly refused to participate in the Court of Arbitration proceedings Pakistan initiated, calling the process illegal, so the 'participating while renegotiating' option is wrong. India has also not continued Permanent Indus Commission meetings on a river-specific basis — it has stated there will be no PIC meetings at all until the treaty itself is discussed, so the claim that only Western Rivers provisions were suspended while Eastern Rivers PIC meetings continue is false.

The static concept

Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — river allocation, Permanent Indus Commission, and dispute-resolution mechanisms (Neutral Expert / Court of Arbitration) under Article IX; termination governed by Article XII.

Renewed live-fire military exercises in the Indo-Pacific region have drawn attention to the fighter-aircraft and naval-platform capabilities of major powers. In this context, consider the following statements regarding India's indigenous military platforms:

1. 1.The Tejas Mk1A, developed by HAL, is classified as a 4.5-generation (fourth-generation-plus) indigenous fighter aircraft.
2. 2.The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme, being developed by DRDO's Aeronautical Development Agency, aims to produce India's first fifth-generation stealth fighter.
3. 3.The Rafale fighter aircraft inducted into the Indian Air Force is classified as a fifth-generation aircraft.
4. 4.INS Vikrant, India's first indigenously built aircraft carrier, is powered by a nuclear propulsion system.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 1 and 2 are correct. The Tejas Mk1A is indeed a 4.5-generation HAL-built fighter, and the AMCA is DRDO-ADA's under-development fifth-generation stealth programme. Statement 3 is wrong: the Rafale, despite its advanced avionics and active radar, is a 4.5-generation aircraft, NOT fifth-generation — true stealth, low-observable fifth-gen status is what AMCA targets, not any aircraft currently in IAF service. Statement 4 is wrong: INS Vikrant is conventionally (steam-turbine) powered — nuclear propulsion in the Indian Navy is currently confined to submarines (the Arihant-class), not to the carrier fleet.

The static concept

Indigenous Defence Platforms — HAL Tejas Mk1A, DRDO-ADA's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), and INS Vikrant — generational and propulsion classification within India's military modernisation and indigenisation drive.

Judicial Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been the primary engine of environmental law-making in India, a theme recently back in focus with the Supreme Court's continuing oversight of the Taj Trapezium Zone. With reference to landmark environmental PIL cases and the doctrines they are chiefly credited with establishing, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium case) — Precautionary Principle
2. 2.Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India — Public Trust Doctrine
3. 3.M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath — Absolute Liability Principle
4. 4.Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. — First environmental PIL in India

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

Only two pairs are correctly matched. Pair 1 is correct: the Taj Trapezium case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, ongoing since 1984) is where the Supreme Court applied the Precautionary Principle to shift polluting industries away from the Taj Mahal's vicinity. Pair 4 is correct: the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra case (the Dehradun/Doon Valley limestone-quarrying matter) is recognised as India's first environmental PIL. Pair 2 is wrong — the Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case is the source of the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle being read into Article 21, not the Public Trust Doctrine, which came from M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. Pair 3 is wrong for the mirror reason — M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath is the Public Trust Doctrine case (holding natural resources are held in trust by the State for the public), not the Absolute Liability case, which was the Shriram Gas Leak matter (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987).

The static concept

Judicial doctrines in Indian environmental law — Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Public Trust Doctrine, and Absolute Liability — evolved through the M.C. Mehta line of Public Interest Litigation under Article 21 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

A recent U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreement with a West Asian state has renewed attention on the legal and treaty architecture governing peaceful nuclear trade and non-proliferation. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes is not itself prohibited for a Non-Nuclear-Weapon State party, provided the material remains under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.
2. 2.A civil nuclear cooperation agreement signed by the United States with another country requires review by the US Congress under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act before it can enter into force.
3. 3.Saudi Arabia is a state party to the NPT, and hence any of its nuclear facilities are automatically subject to the IAEA's Additional Protocol.
4. 4.India, though not a signatory to the NPT, is officially recognised as a Nuclear-Weapon State under the treaty's text by virtue of the 2008 India-US civil nuclear deal.
5. 5.The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), formed in response to India's 1974 nuclear test, takes its decisions — including country-specific exemptions for nuclear trade with a non-NPT state — by consensus among all its participating members.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three' — statements 1, 2, and 5 are correct. Statement 1 is correct: NPT Article IV preserves a Non-Nuclear-Weapon State's right to peaceful nuclear technology, including enrichment, so long as IAEA safeguards apply — enrichment is not banned outright. Statement 2 is correct: under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, any US civil nuclear cooperation agreement needs congressional review before entering into force. Statement 5 is correct: the NSG, formed after India's 1974 test, operates by consensus among all members, which is exactly the mechanism used for the 2008 India-specific waiver. Statement 3 is wrong — Saudi Arabia's NPT membership does not automatically bring the Additional Protocol into force; that requires a separate ratification step, which is precisely why critics flag Saudi Arabia's safeguards as thinner than they could be. Statement 4 is wrong — the NPT recognises only five Nuclear-Weapon States (US, Russia, UK, France, China); India's 2008 deal gave it access to civil nuclear trade via an NSG waiver but did not, and could not, confer NPT-recognised Nuclear-Weapon-State status.

The static concept

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) framework — Nuclear-Weapon-State definition, Article IV peaceful-use rights, IAEA safeguards/Additional Protocol, and the NSG export-control regime.

Straits used for international navigation are governed by differing passage regimes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — a distinction that has drawn renewed attention amid recent tensions affecting Red Sea and Persian Gulf shipping lanes. With reference to List-I (Strait) and List-II (Passage regime applicable under UNCLOS), consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Strait of Hormuz — Transit passage regime
2. 2.Bab el-Mandeb — Transit passage regime
3. 3.Strait of Tiran — Non-suspendable innocent passage
4. 4.Danish Straits (the Belts and the Sound) — Transit passage regime
5. 5.Strait of Malacca — Innocent passage only, transit passage not applicable

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three pairs' — three of the five are correctly matched. Hormuz is correctly matched: it connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, linking one part of the high seas/EEZ to another, so it falls squarely under the Article 37-38 transit passage regime. Bab el-Mandeb is correctly matched for the identical reason — it links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, both bordered by high seas/EEZ waters. The Strait of Tiran pairing is also correct: it connects the Gulf of Aqaba (bounded by the territorial seas of Jordan and Israel) to the Red Sea, so — connecting the high seas/EEZ to the territorial sea of a foreign state rather than to another stretch of high seas/EEZ — it falls outside transit passage and is governed instead by Article 45's non-suspendable innocent passage. Two pairings are wrong. The Danish Straits pairing is incorrect: under Article 35(c), straits whose passage has long been regulated by a specific international convention retain that existing regime, and the Danish Straits continue to operate under the 1857 Copenhagen Convention framework (non-suspendable innocent passage), not the general transit passage regime. The Malacca pairing is also incorrect: Malacca links the Andaman Sea to the South China Sea — both high seas/EEZ waters — so it is a textbook transit passage strait, not one confined to mere innocent passage.

The static concept

UNCLOS Part III — Straits Used for International Navigation: Transit Passage (Articles 37-38) vs Non-Suspendable Innocent Passage (Article 45) vs the Article 35(c) longstanding-convention exception.

Why this answer

The answer is 'Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A'. Composite indices like the ICI are weighted averages of their constituent sectors' growth rates. When the weights are revised — as happened with the ICI's electricity weight rising while coal and natural gas fell — the same set of sectoral growth rates gets multiplied by different weights, mechanically producing a different aggregate growth figure even though nothing about actual sectoral performance changed. This is precisely why the Assertion is true. The Reason correctly states the underlying arithmetic — a fixed-weight average changes when weights change, independent of the constituent values — and this is exactly what explains why the Assertion holds, making R the correct explanation of A, not merely a true but separate fact.

The static concept

Index of Core Industries (ICI) and composite index construction — base year, weighting methodology, and how weight revisions affect reported growth independent of real sectoral performance.

Why this answer

A is false, R is true. The ICI's electricity weight rose because the revision rebased the Index and recomputed each sector's weight from its Gross Value Added share in the new base year — a pure national-accounts exercise, not a mechanism tied to the NDC non-fossil capacity target; the Index does not distinguish renewable from thermal generation within the 'electricity' sector at all, so it cannot be 'designed' to track that target, making A false. R correctly describes the ICI's actual weighting methodology: weights are fixed from base-year GVA shares and are blind to the fuel mix inside any constituent sector, so R stands true on its own and is not an explanation of the (false) claim in A.

The static concept

Index of Core Industries (ICI) — composition, GVA-based weighting methodology, and its relationship to the Index of Industrial Production.