Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 26 July 2026

Fertiliser subsidies, dominated by urea, have long been one of the largest revenue-expenditure items in India's Union Budget, and recent policy moves to boost domestic urea production have kept this fiscal burden in focus. In terms of India's fiscal accounting, how is a rise in this subsidy expenditure best understood?

Why this answer

Fertiliser subsidy is revenue expenditure — it creates no asset and reduces no liability for the government, which is the textbook test for classifying an expenditure as 'revenue' rather than 'capital'. Fiscal deficit equals total expenditure minus total receipts excluding borrowings, so a rise in subsidy spending, having no matching non-debt receipt, directly widens the fiscal deficit; this is exactly why the persistent overshoot in fertiliser subsidy (actual FY2025-26 spend of about ₹2.11 lakh crore against a revised estimate of roughly ₹1.86 lakh crore) is watched as a fiscal-deficit risk even as NIPU-2026 tries to cut import dependence. Calling it capital expenditure is wrong because it funds no asset creation for the government itself. Calling it a capital receipt is wrong because it is an outflow, not an inflow, so it cannot narrow the deficit. It is also not 'off-budget' — fertiliser subsidy is fully reflected in Union Budget expenditure, not carved out under the FRBM Act.

The static concept

Union Budget — Revenue Expenditure and its direct role in the Fiscal Deficit formula (Total Expenditure − Total Receipts excluding borrowings), within the FRBM fiscal-consolidation framework.

A public interest litigation challenging police surveillance towers and facial-recognition use at a protest site has revived attention on the 'proportionality test' the Supreme Court laid down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) for judging State intrusions into privacy under Article 21. Which of the following is NOT one of the conditions this test requires a restriction on privacy to satisfy?

Why this answer

The correct answer is the parliamentary-standing-committee option — it is NOT one of the conditions in the Puttaswamy proportionality test. That test has four components: legality (a law must authorise the action), legitimate aim (the law must serve a genuine State interest), necessity (no less-restrictive means available), and proportionality (a rational, proportionate nexus between the means and the objective). Requiring a parliamentary standing committee to pre-clear every individual instance of surveillance is not part of this judicially laid-down test; it confuses a constitutional standard applicable to all State action with an ad hoc legislative-oversight mechanism that the Court never mandated. The other three options each restate a real prong of the test correctly: backing by law is 'legality', a legitimate aim like public order or security is the second prong, and ruling out less-restrictive alternatives is 'necessity'.

The static concept

Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty, judicially expanded to include the Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017) and its four-prong proportionality test for State restrictions.

India's recent outreach to Eastern European partners has included invitations to join several of India's own flagship multilateral coalitions, alongside India's pre-existing membership in older regional blocs founded by other powers. Which one of the following, unlike the other three, was NOT founded or launched by India?

Why this answer

The answer is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) — it is the one NOT founded by India. The SCO was established in 2001 by China, Russia, and Central Asian states; India joined only later, becoming a full member in 2017. In contrast, the International Solar Alliance (ISA) was co-founded and launched by India (with France) in 2015, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) was launched by India in 2019, and the Global Biofuels Alliance (GBA) was launched by India during its G20 presidency in 2023. This is precisely why Romania — an EU member India recently invited to explore CDRI and GBA alongside its existing ISA membership — was approached as a prospective partner in bodies India leads, not as a fellow founder.

The static concept

India's flagship India-led multilateral coalitions (ISA, CDRI, GBA) as instruments of economic and climate diplomacy, contrasted with legacy blocs (SCO) where India holds membership but not founder status.

The mandate and institutional standing of the UN human rights machinery have drawn renewed attention after political pushback over the extension of a senior UN human rights official's term. In this context, which one of the following statements about the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the one describing the OHCHR's legal basis (UN Charter Articles 1, 13 and 55, plus the Vienna Declaration and GA Resolution 48/141) and its role as secretariat to the Human Rights Council, a distinct 47-member inter-governmental body. The 'directly elected by the General Assembly' claim is wrong — the High Commissioner is appointed by the UN Secretary-General; the General Assembly only approved the recent four-year term extension, it did not elect the office-holder. The 'subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council' claim is wrong — the OHCHR was established by General Assembly resolution in 1993, well before it took on its present secretariat role, and it services the Council rather than being created by it. The 'entirely through voluntary contributions' claim is wrong — the Office is financed through a combination of the UN regular budget and voluntary contributions, not voluntary funds alone.

The static concept

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — Charter basis, appointment process, and its secretariat relationship to the separately constituted Human Rights Council.

The arrest of a former State Public Service Commission chairman in a recruitment-related case has renewed attention on the constitutional safeguards that protect Public Service Commissions from arbitrary removal, and on how these compare with the accountability framework built into the Election Commission. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The Chairman or a member of a Public Service Commission can be removed from office only by an order of the President, on the ground of proved misbehaviour, after the Supreme Court, on a reference made by the President, holds an inquiry and reports that the member ought to be removed.
2. 2.In contrast, a Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only through a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament with the special majority required for a constitutional amendment, in the same manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
3. 3.The age limit for continuing in office is 65 years for members of a State Public Service Commission and 62 years for members of the Union Public Service Commission.
4. 4.The Chairman of a State Public Service Commission, upon ceasing to hold office, is ineligible for appointment as the Chairman or a member of the Union Public Service Commission.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 1 is right: Article 317 requires a Supreme Court inquiry, ordered by the President, before the President can remove a PSC Chairman or member for misbehaviour — this applies equally to Union and State Commissions. Statement 2 is right: a Chief Election Commissioner is removed only by a Parliamentary resolution with special majority, exactly like a Supreme Court Judge, which is a stricter, legislative process quite unlike the PSC route. Statement 3 is wrong — the age limits are swapped; it is 65 years for Union Public Service Commission members and 62 years for State (or Joint) Commission members, not the reverse. Statement 4 is wrong — Article 319 carves out a specific exception: a State PSC Chairman IS eligible for appointment as Chairman or member of the UPSC, or as Chairman of another State PSC; the ineligibility under Article 319 covers only OTHER government employment, not this inter-Commission movement.

The static concept

Articles 315-323 — Public Service Commissions: composition, appointment, tenure, removal, and re-employment restrictions, contrasted with the Election Commission's Article 324(5) removal safeguard.

Assam's unprecedented 2026 floods have renewed attention on the wetlands of the Brahmaputra basin, which function as natural flood buffers for the very floodplain now under water. With reference to Ramsar Sites (Wetlands of International Importance) in India, consider the following pairs of wetland and the State in which it is located:

1. 1.Deepor Beel — Assam
2. 2.Loktak Lake — Manipur
3. 3.Renuka Wetland — Uttarakhand
4. 4.Rudrasagar Lake — Nagaland
5. 5.Kabartal Wetland — Bihar

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

Exactly three pairs are correctly matched. Deepor Beel is genuinely in Assam — a freshwater lake near Guwahati and one of the largest Ramsar sites in the Brahmaputra valley, acting as a natural flood-detention basin for the same floodplain now flooded. Loktak Lake is correctly placed in Manipur, the largest freshwater lake in the Northeast, known for its floating phumdis. Kabartal Wetland is correctly placed in Bihar (Begusarai district), a Ramsar site on the Ganga floodplain. Renuka Wetland is wrongly placed — it lies in Himachal Pradesh (Sirmaur district), not Uttarakhand, a swap between two neighbouring Himalayan states. Rudrasagar Lake is also wrongly placed — it is in Tripura (Melaghar), not Nagaland, a swap between two Northeastern states. That leaves three correct pairs, not two, four, or five.

The static concept

Ramsar Convention — Wetlands of International Importance in India, and their ecological function as flood buffers within river basins such as the Brahmaputra.

The resignation of a Union Cabinet Minister, amid protests over examination-related irregularities, has drawn renewed attention to the constitutional mechanics of ministerial exits. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.A Union Minister's resignation must be submitted in writing directly to the President, with the Prime Minister having no procedural role in the process.
2. 2.The President accepts a Union Minister's resignation under Article 75(2), acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, since Ministers hold office during the President's pleasure.
3. 3.A Minister's resignation becomes legally effective from the moment it is tendered, even before the President's formal acceptance is notified in the Gazette of India.
4. 4.The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha for all its acts of commission and omission.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Only one statement — the second — is correct. Statement 1 is wrong: a Minister tenders resignation to the Prime Minister, who reviews it and forwards it to the President with a recommendation; the President is not the first recipient. Statement 2 is correct: under Article 75(2), Ministers hold office during the President's pleasure, and the President accepts a resignation only on the Prime Minister's advice. Statement 3 is wrong: a resignation takes legal effect only once the President formally accepts it and it is notified in the Gazette of India, not from the moment it is submitted. Statement 4 is wrong: Article 75(3) fixes collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) alone, not to the Rajya Sabha.

The static concept

Article 75(2) — Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President, exercised only on the Prime Minister's advice; Article 75(3) — collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha.

The finding that over half of the world's migratory bird species are now in decline has renewed attention on the international legal and cooperative frameworks that govern their conservation. With reference to the following instruments/frameworks and their correct description, consider the pairs given below:

1. 1.Convention on Migratory Species (CMS / Bonn Convention) — Conserves migratory species across their entire range, spanning terrestrial, aquatic and avian species
2. 2.Ramsar Convention — The primary international framework for negotiating range-state agreements specifically to conserve migratory bird species
3. 3.CITES — Regulates international trade in specimens of wild fauna and flora to prevent their overexploitation
4. 4.African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) — An independent treaty functioning wholly outside the CMS framework
5. 5.Central Asian Flyway (CAF) — A legally binding regional treaty served by its own dedicated permanent secretariat

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — only the CMS and CITES pairs are correctly matched. The CMS (Bonn Convention) pair is correct: it is precisely the treaty mandated to conserve migratory species — terrestrial, aquatic and avian — across their entire range. The CITES pair is correct: it regulates international trade in wildlife specimens to prevent overexploitation. The Ramsar pair is wrong: Ramsar's mandate is the conservation and wise use of wetlands, not negotiating range-state agreements for migratory bird species — that specific function belongs to CMS under its Article IV agreements. The AEWA pair is wrong: AEWA was concluded precisely as a CMS Article IV daughter agreement, so it is not independent of or outside CMS. The Central Asian Flyway pair is wrong: CAF is distinctive precisely because it is a non-binding, cooperative range-state arrangement with no treaty text and no dedicated permanent secretariat — unlike AEWA, which has one.

The static concept

International biodiversity conservation frameworks — CMS (Bonn Convention), Ramsar Convention, CITES, and regional daughter/cooperative arrangements (AEWA, Central Asian Flyway) for migratory species protection.

Why this answer

The Assertion is true: Great Nicobar Island sits close to the Malacca Strait's western approach, and its trans-shipment port and military facilities are explicitly meant to improve India's monitoring of SLOCs in that corridor. The Reason is false: SAGAR is a cooperative, inclusive doctrine — 'Security and Growth for All in the Region' — built on partnership, capacity-building, and freedom of navigation for all states, not unilateral Indian military control over SLOCs, which would contradict both SAGAR's stated principles and UNCLOS-based freedom-of-navigation norms. So A is true but R is false, making the two independently correct statements about SLOC monitoring (from UNCLOS itself) directly relevant background, while the SAGAR mischaracterisation is the trap.

The static concept

India's Indo-Pacific Strategy — SAGAR Doctrine and Maritime Domain Awareness

Why this answer

The Assertion is correct: titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles are widely used in sunscreens precisely because at nanoscale they scatter and absorb UV radiation efficiently while staying transparent, unlike their bulk-form counterparts which appear as a visible white paste. The Reason is false: nanoparticles are not exclusively human-engineered. Natural processes such as volcanic ash formation, sea spray, forest-fire combustion, and even certain biological processes produce particles well within the 1-100 nanometre range without any human intervention; nanotechnology as a field only harnesses and engineers this size regime, it did not invent nanoscale matter itself. Because a false Reason cannot explain a true Assertion, the correct choice is 'A is true but R is false'.

The static concept

Nanotechnology — properties, applications (cosmetics, drug delivery, energy) and the natural-vs-engineered origin of nanoscale particles.