Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 28 July 2026

India's examination-integrity architecture has recently drawn renewed attention amid paper-leak controversies and reform proposals. Which of the following best describes the primary purpose of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024?

Why this answer

The correct description is that the Act builds a legal framework criminalising unfair means — paper leaks, impersonation, tampering with computer networks or merit lists — across exams run by UPSC, SSC, Railway Recruitment Board, NTA, and IBPS. The option crediting the Act with creating the NTA is wrong: the NTA was set up in 2017, years before this 2024 law, so the Act regulates conduct around exams rather than establishing the examining body. The option citing five-to-ten years' imprisonment and a one-crore-rupee minimum fine is wrong for an individual offender — those are the Section 11 organised-crime penalties; an individual acting alone faces three-to-five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees under Section 10. The option about mandating exclusively online, computer-based examinations is wrong — the Act targets unfair means generally and does not impose any such mode mandate.

The static concept

Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 — legislative architecture against examination malpractice, distinct from the administrative bodies (NTA, UPSC, SSC) that conduct the exams it protects.

AI-assisted design of peptides for personalised cancer vaccines has drawn renewed attention to peptide-based (subunit) vaccine platforms. Such vaccines primarily generate immune protection by which of the following mechanisms?

Why this answer

The correct answer is that peptide-based vaccines present short antigenic fragments that bind HLA molecules on cell surfaces, enabling T-cell recognition — this is exactly the mechanism the Technical University of Denmark study targeted, designing peptides to bind HLA so cytotoxic T-cells can recognise and destroy abnormal (cancerous) cells. The live-attenuated option is wrong because it describes a different platform entirely (e.g., OPV, MMR) that uses a weakened whole pathogen, not isolated peptides. The viral-vector option is wrong for the same reason — it describes vector-based vaccines like Covishield or Sputnik V, which deliver genetic material for in-vivo antigen production, not pre-designed peptide fragments. The 'B-cells exclusively' option fails on the absolute 'exclusively, without engaging T-cell pathways' — HLA-peptide presentation is fundamentally a T-cell recognition pathway, so this option misdescribes the very mechanism the stem is about.

The static concept

Vaccine platforms and immune mechanisms — subunit/peptide-based vaccines and HLA-mediated antigen presentation to T-cells, contrasted with live-attenuated, inactivated, and vector-based platforms.

IMD's forecast of a monsoon revival, with a deep depression over the northwest Bay of Bengal crossing the Odisha-West Bengal coast, has renewed attention on the Bay of Bengal branch of the southwest monsoon — which delivers markedly heavier rainfall to the eastern Indo-Gangetic plain than to its western reaches. Which one of the following best explains this east-to-west decline in rainfall along the plain?

Why this answer

The correct explanation is that the branch is funnelled north up the Bay and forced to rise against the Khasi Hills and eastern Himalayan foothills — producing India's heaviest rainfall at Mawsynram/Cherrapunji — before turning west onto the Gangetic plain as a drier current, so totals fall from the delta toward Delhi. The Western Ghats option is wrong: that orographic barrier belongs to the Arabian Sea branch, not the Bay of Bengal branch. The IMD-classification option is true as a general fact about rainfall categories but does not explain the geographic decline — it is irrelevant to the mechanism asked. The Coriolis option overstates its case with 'before losing any moisture' — the branch loses the bulk of its moisture early, against the Meghalaya/Himalayan foothills, not only after reaching the west.

The static concept

Indian Monsoon System — Bay of Bengal branch, funnelled northward and forced to rise against the Khasi Hills/eastern Himalayan foothills, producing an east-to-west decline in rainfall across the Indo-Gangetic plain.

Attacks on commercial vessels in the Black Sea region, which have recently drawn attention after Indian seafarers came to harm there, raise questions about the legal regime governing safety of navigation and rescue at sea. With reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which one of the following statements most accurately describes the legal position?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the one that describes Article 98(1) as binding the flag State to direct its ship's master to assist any person in danger of being lost, irrespective of nationality, across the territorial sea, EEZ, and high seas — Article 98(2) additionally obliges coastal States to run search-and-rescue services. The 'only on the high seas, no coastal-State obligation' statement fails on both counts: Article 98(2) explicitly creates a coastal-State SAR duty, and the assistance obligation is not confined to the high seas. The 'UNCLOS entirely suspended by naval warfare' statement is wrong — UNCLOS continues to apply alongside the law of armed conflict, not in its place, as the interplay envisaged under provisions like Article 298(1)(b) shows. The 'discretionary, confined to flag-State jurisdiction' statement misstates Article 98 as optional and geographically limited, when it is a mandatory duty on the ship's master that travels with the vessel wherever it sails.

The static concept

UNCLOS Articles 87, 88, 98 and 301 — high-seas freedoms, peaceful-purposes reservation, the duty to render assistance, and the prohibition on the threat or use of force, including their continued application during armed conflict.

The introduction of a high-profile Ordinary Bill in the Lok Sabha amid sustained Opposition protests has renewed attention on the constitutional framework governing how such a Bill is enacted. With reference to this framework, consider the following statements:

1. 1.An Ordinary Bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament by a Minister or by any other member, and its introduction does not require the prior recommendation of the President.
2. 2.A deadlock between the two Houses over an Ordinary Bill or a Financial Bill (Type I) may be resolved through a joint sitting summoned under Article 108, but this joint-sitting mechanism does not extend to Money Bills or Constitutional Amendment Bills.
3. 3.Where the President returns an Ordinary Bill for reconsideration and Parliament passes it again, with or without amendments, the President may choose to withhold assent a second time.
4. 4.A sitting of either House of Parliament requires a quorum of at least one-fourth of its total membership, failing which the Presiding Officer must adjourn the House for the remainder of the day.

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: an Ordinary Bill may be moved by a Minister or any other member in either House, with no prior Presidential recommendation needed (unlike a Money Bill). Statement 2 is right: Article 108 joint sittings apply to Ordinary Bills and Financial Bills (Type I) only, never to Money Bills or Constitutional Amendment Bills. Statement 3 is wrong: once Parliament re-passes a Bill the President earlier returned for reconsideration, the President has no further discretion and must give assent — 'may withhold again' contradicts this settled rule under Article 111. Statement 4 is wrong: the quorum to transact business in either House is one-tenth of total membership, not one-fourth.

The static concept

Articles 107-111 — Legislative procedure for Ordinary Bills, including the Article 108 joint sitting for inter-House deadlocks and Presidential assent under Article 111.

The 'merger' exception to the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule has recently drawn renewed attention amid a Supreme Court examination of how it is invoked. With reference to the Tenth Schedule and its amending history, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 — Inserted the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) into the Constitution
2. 2.91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 — Removed the 'split' exception that had existed under Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule
3. 3.Paragraph 4(2) of the Tenth Schedule — A merger is deemed to have taken place if not less than one-third of the members of the legislature party agree to it
4. 4.Subhash Desai v. State of Maharashtra (2023) — Held that a legislature party can validly effect a merger on its own, independent of the original political party's approval

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — pairs 1 and 2 are correct, pairs 3 and 4 are wrong. Pair 1 is correct: the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 inserted the Tenth Schedule into the Constitution. Pair 2 is correct: the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 removed the 'split' exception (the old Paragraph 3, which allowed immunity on a one-third break-away). Pair 3 is wrong: Paragraph 4(2) requires not less than TWO-THIRDS of the legislature party to agree for a merger to be deemed valid, not one-third — one-third was the threshold under the now-repealed split provision, and confusing the two is exactly the trap. Pair 4 is wrong: in Subhash Desai (2023) the Supreme Court held the OPPOSITE — a legislature party cannot act independently of the original political party; both the organizational test (the original party's formal decision to merge) and the legislative test (two-thirds agreement) must be satisfied together.

The static concept

Tenth Schedule, Paragraph 4 — the 'merger' exception to the anti-defection law, and its amending history (52nd CAA 1985, 91st CAA 2003)

A High Court ruling striking down a cess levied on pan masala manufacturers has renewed attention on the constitutional test courts apply to tax legislation under Article 14, and on how cess revenue sits within Centre-State fiscal relations. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The court held that Parliament lacked legislative competence to impose a cess of this kind, and struck down the levy on that ground.
2. 2.The court found the levy unconstitutional because taxing manufacturers on assumed production capacity, rather than actual output, lacked a rational nexus with the object of the cess, thereby violating Article 14.
3. 3.Had the cess been upheld, its proceeds would have gone into the divisible pool under Article 270 and been shared with the States, since all Union cesses are constitutionally required to be shared with them.
4. 4.The 'reasonable classification' test applied to tax statutes under Article 14 is satisfied by an intelligible differentia alone, without any further requirement of a rational nexus to the legislative objective.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Only one statement is correct — the second. The court upheld Parliament's legislative competence to levy the cess; it struck down only the METHOD of levy, so the competence-based striking-down in statement 1 is wrong. Statement 2 is correct: taxing manufacturers on assumed machine capacity rather than actual output broke the 'rational nexus' limb of the Article 14 classification test, making the levy arbitrary. Statement 3 is wrong — a cess is, by design, kept by the Union outside the divisible pool under Article 270 and is NOT shared with the States as a matter of constitutional requirement; that is precisely why cesses are fiscally attractive to the Centre. Statement 4 is wrong — the settled test (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, 1958) requires BOTH an intelligible differentia AND a rational nexus to the statute's object; dropping the rational-nexus limb misstates the test the court actually applied here.

The static concept

Article 14 — reasonable classification test (intelligible differentia + rational nexus) applied to tax legislation, and Article 270 — cess revenue excluded from the divisible pool shared with States

With Indian seafarers and merchant vessels repeatedly coming under attack in active conflict zones such as the Black Sea, India's practice of deploying its armed forces to protect citizens and shipping abroad has drawn renewed attention. With reference to major operations undertaken by India's armed forces for evacuation of Indian nationals or protection of Indian shipping in conflict/crisis zones, consider the following pairs (Operation — Purpose):

1. 1.Operation Sankalp — Indian Navy escort deployment safeguarding India-flagged merchant vessels transiting the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz
2. 2.Operation Ganga — Evacuation of Indian nationals from Ukraine after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict
3. 3.Operation Kaveri — Evacuation of Indian nationals from Sudan amid the 2023 conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces
4. 4.Operation Ajay — Evacuation of Indian nationals from Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover
5. 5.Operation Devi Shakti — Evacuation of Indian nationals from Israel during the 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three pairs' — Sankalp, Ganga, and Kaveri are correctly matched. Operation Sankalp (2019) is the Indian Navy's ongoing mission escorting India-flagged merchant vessels through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz after tanker attacks there. Operation Ganga (2022) evacuated Indian nationals from Ukraine after the Russian invasion. Operation Kaveri (April 2023) evacuated Indians from Sudan during the SAF-RSF conflict. The remaining two pairs are swapped: Operation Ajay (October 2023) evacuated Indians from Israel during the Israel-Hamas conflict, not Afghanistan; Operation Devi Shakti (August 2021) evacuated Indians from Afghanistan after the Taliban's takeover of Kabul, not Israel.

The static concept

India's armed-forces-led citizen-evacuation and maritime-protection operations (Operation Sankalp, Ganga, Kaveri, Ajay, Devi Shakti) — the Navy and Air Force's expanding role beyond territorial defence into protecting nationals and shipping abroad.

Why this answer

The Assertion is true and well-established: Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act, 1974 is a domestic statute that lets the U.S. President order investigations and impose tariffs unilaterally on a trading partner — including on forced-labour or 'unfair practice' grounds — without needing prior authorisation from the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The Reason is false: Section 301 is NOT a WTO-sanctioned instrument under the Agreement on Safeguards or any other WTO text — it is purely U.S. domestic legislation. Because such unilateral tariff action bypasses the multilateral process the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) prescribes, Section 301 actions have repeatedly been challenged (most notably in the 1999 US–Section 301 WTO panel case) as sitting in tension with DSU obligations, not as something the WTO itself authorises. So A is true, R is false — the keyed answer.

The static concept

Unilateral U.S. trade-remedy law (Section 301, Trade Act 1974) versus the WTO's multilateral Dispute Settlement Understanding — the legal architecture governing India's exposure to bilateral tariff and non-tariff barriers.

Why this answer

The Assertion is true: at Bab-el-Mandeb, an inflow of less-saline Gulf of Aden water occurs in the surface layer while denser, hypersaline Red Sea water flows out at depth — this is a textbook 'anti-estuarine' or inverse circulation pattern, the opposite of what a river-fed estuary shows. The Reason is false: the Red Sea receives negligible river discharge (the Arabian Peninsula and the African coast bordering it are both arid, with no perennial rivers draining into it); its high surface salinity instead results from very high evaporation exceeding the meagre precipitation and runoff. Since the Reason's causal claim is factually wrong, it cannot explain the Assertion, making 'A is true, but R is false' the correct choice.

The static concept

Ocean Temperature & Salinity — evaporation-precipitation-runoff balance controlling salinity, and strait/sill water-exchange (estuarine vs anti-estuarine circulation).