Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 2 August 2026

Tax devolution to States has been in the news again with the Union Government releasing an additional instalment over and above the regular monthly transfer. With reference to the recommendations of the Finance Commission under Article 280 of the Constitution regarding the distribution of tax proceeds between the Union and the States, which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The recommendations of the Finance Commission, including on vertical tax devolution, are advisory in nature under Article 280 — the Constitution does not make them legally binding on the Union Government. In practice, however, they have been implemented by convention, as with the 16th Finance Commission retaining the 41% devolution share for 2026-27 to 2030-31. The option asserting bindingness on both governments overstates the legal position; the option splitting bindingness between the Union and States misattributes an obligation that exists for neither; and the option invoking a Rajya Sabha ratification borrows a real constitutional mechanism used elsewhere (such as creating an All India Service under Article 312) that has no bearing on Finance Commission recommendations.

The static concept

Fiscal Federalism — Finance Commission (Article 280): advisory recommendations on vertical and horizontal tax devolution between the Union and States

Courts have recently quashed decisions of statutory development bodies accused of bending rules to favour private interests, renewing attention on 'mala fide exercise of power' as a ground of judicial review over administrative action. In this context, which one of the following best describes this ground?

Why this answer

The correct description is that mala fide exercise of power means a statutory power used for a purpose foreign to the one the law intended it for, and this does not require proving personal ill-will or moral turpitude. The 'financial loss regardless of intention' option is true-but-irrelevant — mere loss without an improper purpose is not mala fide. The 'only with proven personal ill-will or corrupt financial motive' option is wrong because mala fide does not require such proof of personal malice; it can be established purely from the purpose of the exercise of power being foreign to law, though the burden of proving even this is described as very heavy. The option letting courts 'substitute their own view of the merits' is wrong because judicial review checks legality and the decision-making process, not the wisdom or merits of the decision itself.

The static concept

Judicial Review of Administrative Action — grounds: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality, and mala fide exercise of power.

Biochar production from crop residue, recently promoted among Karnataka farmers through State agricultural university training funded under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY), is often cited as both a soil-health and a climate-change-mitigation intervention. Which one of the following most accurately explains why biochar application is regarded as a genuine carbon SEQUESTRATION technique, as distinct from merely adding organic matter such as farmyard manure or compost to the soil?

Why this answer

The correct explanation is that pyrolysis (heating biomass with limited oxygen) converts crop-residue carbon into a chemically stable, aromatic 'recalcitrant' form that soil microbes cannot easily break down, so it stays locked in the soil for long periods instead of cycling back to the atmosphere as CO2 the way raw organic matter or compost does. The Soil Health Card option is a real but irrelevant fact — it tracks Organic Carbon every three years but does not explain the sequestration mechanism itself. The farmyard-manure/National Mission on Natural Farming option wrongly swaps in anaerobic decomposition as the operative process, when it is pyrolysis, not decomposition, that stabilises the carbon. The alkalinity option overstates a minor, non-absolute pH effect into a false 'completely/permanently/all' claim about carbonate mineral formation, which is not how biochar sequesters carbon.

The static concept

Carbon sequestration via soil amendments — biochar's pyrolysis-stabilised carbon versus general Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) enhancement under sustainable agriculture.

India's current push to attract investment from both China and the U.S., while also relying on trade-remedy tools against dumping, has drawn renewed attention to how India's FDI framework actually treats investment from land-bordering countries. Which of the following most accurately describes this framework?

Why this answer

The correct description is that non-controlling investments up to 10% of beneficial ownership from land-bordering countries can now use the Automatic Route, while direct investments CONTROLLED by China or Hong Kong still need government approval regardless of size. The first option overstates Press Note 3 as an absolute rule with 'without exception' — the 2026 relaxation created precisely that exception for small non-controlling stakes. The third option is wrong on two counts: Press Note 3 (2020) applies to ANY country sharing a land border with India, not just China, and it was only partially relaxed for non-controlling minority stakes, never repealed. The fourth option wrongly extends the general land-border relaxation to Pakistan — Pakistani citizens/entities are confined to the Government Route only, and only in sectors other than defence, space, atomic energy, and other prohibited sectors, a stricter carve-out the general 10% automatic-route relaxation does not touch.

The static concept

FDI policy — sectoral caps, Automatic vs Government Route, and country-specific restrictions (Press Note 3, 2020) under FEMA, 1999 and the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019.

Amid renewed advisories urging foreign nationals to consider leaving West Asia as regional tensions have again flared, India's own stakes in the region have drawn attention. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.India sources close to 88-90% of its crude oil requirement through imports, a large share of which transits West Asian shipping lanes, making it highly exposed to disruptions there.
2. 2.Indian nationals residing in Gulf countries number close to 5 million, and their remittances account for around 15% of India's total global remittance inflows.
3. 3.India's diplomatic response to conflicts in West Asia has been one of strict neutrality, refraining from calling for de-escalation, restraint, or dialogue between the parties involved.
4. 4.Disruptions to chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea-Suez Canal corridor, caused by West Asia conflicts, have raised freight and insurance costs for India's trade.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 1 and 4 are correct. Statement 1 is right: India imports close to 88-90% of its crude oil, much of it transiting West Asian sea lanes, leaving supply chains highly exposed to regional escalation. Statement 4 is right: disruption to the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea-Suez Canal corridor has pushed up freight and insurance costs on India's trade routes. Statement 2 is wrong — Indian nationals in the Gulf number close to 9-10 million, not 5 million, and their remittances form nearly 38-40% of India's total inflows, not 15%. Statement 3 is wrong — India's stance is not strict neutrality; the MEA has actively called for de-escalation, restraint, and dialogue, consistent with a policy of strategic autonomy rather than disengagement.

The static concept

India's West Asia policy — strategic autonomy, energy-security dependence, diaspora-remittance linkages, and maritime chokepoint vulnerability (Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea-Suez corridor).

The tension between Parliament's law-making power and the binding force of Supreme Court judgments has drawn renewed attention amid recent disputes over service-cadre legislation. With reference to constitutional provisions on judicial review and the enforcement of Fundamental Rights in India, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Article 13 — Declares any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights void to the extent of such inconsistency
2. 2.Article 32 — Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
3. 3.Article 226 — Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as other legal rights
4. 4.Article 141 — Makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts in India, including the Supreme Court itself
5. 5.Article 368 — Confers on Parliament an unrestricted power to amend any provision of the Constitution

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — the Article 13 pairing and the Article 226 pairing are correctly matched. Article 13 does void any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, to the extent of the inconsistency. Article 226 does empower High Courts to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other legal rights, which is exactly why High Court writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court's. The Article 32 pairing is wrong — the power to issue writs for Fundamental Rights under Article 32 belongs to the Supreme Court, not High Courts; that description actually fits Article 226. The Article 141 pairing is wrong — 'all courts' under Article 141 excludes the Supreme Court itself, which retains the power to review and depart from its own past rulings. The Article 368 pairing is wrong — Parliament's amending power is not unrestricted; the Basic Structure Doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati (1973) bars alteration of the Constitution's essential features.

The static concept

Judicial Review of Legislation — Articles 13, 32, 226 and 141: the scope of writ jurisdiction and the binding force of Supreme Court judgments against Parliament's legislative competence.

India's legal and institutional architecture for governing Artificial Intelligence and synthetic media (deepfakes) has drawn renewed attention amid recurring global incidents of AI-generated misinformation. With reference to this framework, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The India AI Governance Guidelines, released under the IndiaAI Mission in November 2025, constitute a legally binding statute enforceable through statutory penalties for non-compliance.
2. 2.The 2026 amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 require Significant Social Media Intermediaries to make users declare whether uploaded content is synthetically generated information and to deploy technical measures verifying such declarations.
3. 3.Under these amended Rules, intermediaries must remove general unlawful synthetic content within two hours of a valid court order or government direction, a stricter timeline than the three-hour window prescribed for sensitive content such as artificially morphed or obscene images.
4. 4.The proposed Digital India Act has already come into force, replacing the Information Technology Act, 2000, as India's primary legislation governing deepfakes and synthetic media.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only one' — only the second statement is correct. Statement 2 is right: the amended IT Rules require Significant Social Media Intermediaries to make users declare synthetically generated information (SGI) and verify such declarations technically. Statement 1 is wrong: the India AI Governance Guidelines (November 2025) are explicitly a non-binding, 'light-touch' reference document, not a statute carrying statutory penalties. Statement 3 is wrong: it reverses the actual timelines — sensitive synthetic content (morphed/obscene images) must be removed within two hours, while general unlawful content under a valid order gets three hours; the statement swaps which category is stricter. Statement 4 is wrong: the Digital India Act remains a proposed, draft law still under legislative development and has not come into force or replaced the IT Act, 2000.

The static concept

AI & Deepfake Governance in India — the layered framework of the non-binding India AI Governance Guidelines, the binding IT Rules, 2021 (as amended 2026) on synthetically generated information, and the proposed Digital India Act.

Teacher-union protests against Centrally Sponsored Schemes in school education have recently drawn renewed attention to the institutional architecture built under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. With reference to List-I (Scheme/Body) and List-II (Correct feature), consider the following pairs:

1. 1.PM SHRI Schools — A Centrally Sponsored Scheme under which selected schools are upgraded into exemplar institutions after the State signs an MoU committing to adopt NEP 2020 features
2. 2.Samagra Shiksha — School education scheme funded on a fixed 90:10 Centre-State cost-sharing ratio across all States
3. 3.National Education Policy 2020 — A statute enacted by Parliament that legally supersedes the National Policy on Education, 1986
4. 4.PARAKH — A national-level body constituted under NEP 2020 to standardise assessment frameworks across school education boards

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — the PM SHRI and PARAKH pairs are correct, the Samagra Shiksha and NEP-as-statute pairs are wrong. PM SHRI Schools is correctly matched: it is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme requiring States/UTs to sign an MoU committing to adopt NEP 2020 provisions before their schools are upgraded into exemplar institutions. PARAKH is correctly matched: it was constituted under NEP 2020 (housed within NCERT) precisely to standardise assessment frameworks across the country's different school boards. Samagra Shiksha is wrongly matched — its Centre-State funding is NOT a fixed 90:10 for all States; that ratio applies only to the North-Eastern and Himalayan States plus UTs with legislature, while most other States share costs at 60:40 and UTs without legislature get 100% central funding. The National Education Policy 2020 pairing is wrongly matched — NEP 2020 is a policy document approved by the Union Cabinet, not a statute passed by Parliament, and it carries no independent legal force to 'supersede' the 1986 policy the way an Act would.

The static concept

National Education Policy 2020 — institutional and funding architecture: PM SHRI, Samagra Shiksha cost-sharing, and the PARAKH assessment body.

Why this answer

The correct answer is 'A is true but R is false.' The assertion is accurate: in Philippines v. China (2016), the PCA held that China's historic-rights claim within the nine-dash line had no legal basis once UNCLOS entered into force, because UNCLOS's EEZ and continental-shelf regime superseded any pre-existing historic-rights claims not expressly preserved by the Convention. The reason is false: UNCLOS does NOT permit a coastal state to claim historic rights over waters beyond its EEZ merely through continuous prior use — Part V and Part VI of UNCLOS instead establish a fixed, distance-based entitlement (12 nm territorial sea, 200 nm EEZ, extended continental shelf under defined criteria), leaving no scope for an extra-legal historic-rights claim to override it. This is exactly why the tribunal rejected China's nine-dash-line claim.

The static concept

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 — maritime zones (territorial sea, EEZ, continental shelf) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration's 2016 South China Sea ruling.

Why this answer

Both A and R are true statements, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A. The right to choose a life partner as a facet of Article 21 personal liberty was directly settled in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), which held that the State and family cannot interfere with an adult's choice of partner. Puttaswamy (2017) is a true and landmark ruling, but it settled the distinct question of privacy as a fundamental right, not the specific choice-of-partner doctrine — so R, though correct, does not explain A.

The static concept

Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty, judicially expanded to include the right to choose a life partner and the right to privacy as distinct facets.