Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 29 July 2026

The Indian rupee's valuation has recently drawn renewed attention amid shifts in its Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER), reviving interest in how the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) measures the rupee's external value. In this context, which of the following best distinguishes REER from the Nominal Effective Exchange Rate (NEER)?

Why this answer

REER is a weighted geometric average of nominal exchange rates adjusted for relative price differentials (it equals NEER multiplied by the ratio of the domestic to foreign price index), while NEER is only the weighted average of bilateral nominal exchange rates with no inflation adjustment — so the option stating REER carries the inflation adjustment and NEER does not is correct. The option reversing this (NEER as the inflation-adjusted one) swaps their roles. The option citing a 2004-05 base year and a 36-currency basket is wrong — RBI's current NEER/REER indices use a 2015-16 base year and a 40-currency (plus 6-currency) basket. The option claiming RBI relies solely on WPI is wrong — RBI now computes these indices using CPI for India and its trading partners.

The static concept

External Sector — Exchange Rate Mechanisms: Nominal Effective Exchange Rate (NEER) and Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER)

India's position on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) has been in renewed focus amid Pakistan's conduct of elections there. Which one of the following most accurately describes the constitutional and diplomatic basis of India's claim over PoK?

Why this answer

The correct answer is that India's claim over PoK rests on the 1947 Instrument of Accession and Article 1 of the Constitution, with the UN plebiscite resolutions treated as infructuous because Pakistan never fulfilled the precondition of withdrawing its forces — this is India's consistent, Parliament-backed position, not a recent stance. The 'UN-mandated interim arrangement, rhetorical claim' option is wrong because India's claim is a settled constitutional position, not mere diplomatic sentiment, and no such UN mandate legitimises Pakistan's administration. The 2019 Reorganisation Act option is wrong because that Act only restructured the Indian-administered territory into the J&K and Ladakh Union Territories — it did not create or originate India's claim over PoK, which predates it by over seven decades. The Simla Agreement option is wrong because that 1972 pact converted the ceasefire line into the Line of Control and committed both sides to a bilateral settlement — it did not adjudicate or settle sovereignty over PoK.

The static concept

Article 1 of the Constitution ('India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States') read with the 1947 Instrument of Accession, and India's position on the conditional, now-infructuous UN plebiscite resolutions on Kashmir.

The global fast fashion model — high-volume, low-cost garment production — has drawn renewed attention for its outsized environmental footprint, spanning significant carbon emissions and industrial water pollution. In this context, circular economy interventions are increasingly proposed as a corrective for such resource-intensive manufacturing sectors. Which of the following best explains WHY circular economy principles are considered effective in reducing the environmental footprint of an industry like textiles?

Why this answer

The correct explanation is that circular economy interventions cut dependence on virgin raw-material extraction and reduce wastage across the production process — this directly lowers both resource consumption and the emissions tied to producing new inputs, which is the mechanism through which circularity is understood to shrink an industry's footprint. The option claiming pollution is 'eliminated altogether' overreaches: dyeing and wet-processing pollution is reduced by circularity, not removed outright, since recycled inputs still typically require some treatment. The option describing faster replacement of garments with newer designs is describing the fast-fashion model itself — the problem circular economy is meant to correct, not the corrective mechanism. And the option about making recycled garments more fashionable and premium-priced speaks to market positioning, not to the resource-and-wastage mechanism that actually reduces environmental impact.

The static concept

Circular Economy principles applied to industrial production (textile sector) — reduced raw-material extraction and reduced production wastage, and their link to lowering GHG emissions.

With reference to the legal process for declaring an area as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — a mechanism recently back in focus amid the Western Ghats notification impasse — which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is that only the Central Government, acting under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5(1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, holds the power to notify an Ecologically Sensitive Area — State Governments are consulted and their views are considered, but this consultation does not amount to a veto. This is precisely why the Western Ghats ESA draft has been reissued seven times without lapsing: the Centre keeps revising the proposal in response to State objections, but is not legally bound to secure their consent. The claim that the National Board for Wildlife (a Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 body concerned with sanctuaries and national parks) holds this power is wrong — that mechanism is separate from the EPA route used for ESAs. The claim that State consent is a mandatory precondition is also wrong, since the statute only requires that their views be considered, not obtained as formal consent. Finally, no six-month automatic-lapse clause exists in Rule 5(1); that rule lists factors such as biodiversity value and proximity to protected areas that guide the restriction, not a notification deadline.

The static concept

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — Section 3(2)(v) and Rule 5(1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: the Central Government's power to declare and regulate Ecologically Sensitive Areas.

With reference to the institutional and constitutional mechanisms for resolving inter-State river water disputes in India — an issue recently back in focus amid the Cauvery-Mekedatu dispute — consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Article 262 — Empowers Parliament to provide for adjudication of inter-State river water disputes and to exclude the jurisdiction of courts, including the Supreme Court, over such disputes
2. 2.Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — Provides for the Central Government to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal on a request from a State Government
3. 3.Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal — Constituted under the River Boards Act, 1956
4. 4.Cauvery Water Management Authority — An advisory body with no statutory power to regulate water release schedules among the riparian States
5. 5.Supreme Court's 2018 Cauvery verdict — Delivered in civil appeals filed under Article 136, despite Section 11 of the 1956 Act's bar on original suits

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three pairs' — pairs 1, 2, and 5 are correctly matched. Pair 1 is correct: Article 262 lets Parliament both provide adjudication machinery for inter-State river disputes and bar courts (including the Supreme Court) from that jurisdiction. Pair 2 is correct: the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 is the law under which the Centre constitutes a Tribunal at a State's request. Pair 3 is wrong — the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1990) was constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not the separate River Boards Act, 1956 (which set up advisory river boards and has rarely been invoked). Pair 4 is wrong — the Cauvery Water Management Authority, set up to implement the Supreme Court's 2018 modified award, has real regulatory power to determine and enforce monthly/seasonal water-release schedules; it is not a toothless advisory body. Pair 5 is correct: despite Section 11 of the 1956 Act ousting original suits over water disputes, the riparian States approached the Supreme Court via civil appeals under Article 136 against the Tribunal's award, and the Court held this appellate jurisdiction survives the ouster clause.

The static concept

Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — the constitutional and statutory architecture for adjudicating inter-State river water disputes, illustrated by the Cauvery Tribunal, the 2018 Supreme Court verdict, and the Cauvery Water Management Authority.

Tamil Nadu's recent objection to the Centre's parliamentary reply on the Mekedatu project has renewed attention on the statutory machinery under Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, by which such disputes are adjudicated outside the Supreme Court's ordinary jurisdiction. With reference to the Tribunals constituted under this Act and the river(s) each was set up to adjudicate, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal — Rivers Ravi and Beas
2. 2.Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal — River Mahadayi (Mandovi)
3. 3.Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal — River Godavari
4. 4.Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal — River Cauvery

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — the first and second pairs are correctly matched. The Ravi and Beas Water Tribunal (1986) was set up for the Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan dispute over the Ravi and Beas, and the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) adjudicates the Karnataka-Goa-Maharashtra dispute over the Mahadayi (Mandovi). The third pair is wrong — the Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) was constituted for the Vansadhara river dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, not the Godavari (which has its own, separate 1969 Tribunal). The fourth pair is wrong — the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (1969) covers the Narmada, not the Cauvery, which is the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's (1990) remit and the one actually central to the Mekedatu dispute in the news.

The static concept

Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — Parliament's power to exclude the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over interstate river disputes and refer them to statutory Tribunals instead.

Why this answer

The answer is 'Both A and R are true, and R IS the correct explanation of A.' Assertion is true: Section 6A does fix 24 March 1971 as Assam's special cut-off, distinct from the general 1950/1955 framework applied elsewhere. Reason is true and is precisely why A holds: the Supreme Court, in upholding Section 6A's validity, reasoned that Assam's unique migratory pressures from East Pakistan gave it a rational nexus to a distinct classification under Article 14, which is exactly the constitutional basis that permits the special 1971 cut-off to stand. Since the Article 14 reasonable-classification finding is the direct justification for the distinct cut-off date, R explains A rather than being a merely true but separate fact.

The static concept

Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6A -- Assam's special citizenship cut-off (24 March 1971), and its Article 14 reasonable-classification basis as upheld by the Supreme Court.