Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 7 August 2026

Renewed calls for earlier cancer diagnosis in India have drawn attention to how the government's primary healthcare architecture is designed to catch non-communicable diseases (NCDs) before they turn into complex, expensive, late-stage cases. In this context, which of the following best describes the strategic response embedded in National Health Policy (NHP) 2017 and the Ayushman Bharat Health and Wellness Centres (AB-HWCs)?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the first: AB-HWCs deliver Comprehensive Primary Health Care, and their population-based initiative screens persons above 30 years of age for diabetes, hypertension, and common cancers (oral, breast, cervical) — this operationalises NHP 2017's declared shift from a curative to a preventive and promotive orientation. The chemotherapy/surgery claim is wrong because AB-HWCs sit at the primary-care level (screening and early referral), not tertiary treatment. The 'compulsory for all above 18' claim is wrong on both the age threshold (it is 30+) and on framing screening as a mandatory legal right, which NHP 2017 does not create. The NPCDCS-launch claim is wrong on chronology — NPCDCS was launched in 2010, seven years before NHP 2017, and its NCD Clinics sit at District and Community Health Centre levels, not private tertiary hospitals.

The static concept

National Health Policy 2017's preventive-promotive orientation, operationalised through Ayushman Bharat Health and Wellness Centres' population-based NCD screening (persons 30+) for diabetes, hypertension, and common cancers.

Renewed commentary on the erosion of the 'rules-based international order' has brought fresh attention to the legal architecture of global nuclear disarmament. In this context, which of the following most accurately describes the obligation placed on states under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

Why this answer

The correct option is that Article VI binds 'Each of the Parties to the Treaty' — every signatory, nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon state alike — to pursue negotiations in good faith toward nuclear disarmament and eventual general and complete disarmament, with no fixed timetable specified in its text (a reading affirmed by the ICJ's 1996 advisory opinion). The option restricting the duty to only the five nuclear-weapon states is wrong — the text says 'each of the Parties', not 'nuclear-weapon states'. The option claiming a binding 25-year elimination timetable is wrong — Article VI deliberately contains no deadline, only an open-ended 'good faith negotiation' standard. The option requiring UN Security Council pre-consent for disarmament talks is wrong — Article VI creates no such procedural gatekeeping role for the Security Council.

The static concept

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — Article VI disarmament obligations and India's non-signatory, no-first-use nuclear doctrine

Nuclear non-proliferation dynamics in East Asia have drawn renewed attention amid recent North Korean missile activity and deepening regional security tensions. In this context, which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the one describing the Washington Declaration (April 2023) as deepening U.S. extended deterrence to the Republic of Korea — including periodic visits by a U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarine to Korean waters — precisely to reduce Seoul's incentive to build its own bomb. The statement placing this submarine commitment in Japanese waters is wrong: the Washington Declaration is a US-ROK instrument, not a US-Japan one. The statement on North Korea's NPT exit is wrong on timing: Pyongyang announced withdrawal on 10 January 2003, but it became legally effective only on 10 April 2003, not on the announcement date. The statement on Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles is wrong on legal character and year: they were articulated by PM Eisaku Sato in 1967 but formally adopted by the Diet only in 1971, and as a parliamentary resolution/policy — not a binding statute.

The static concept

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — non-proliferation pillar and treaty-withdrawal mechanics, alongside the US alliance-based extended-deterrence architecture (Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles; the US-ROK Washington Declaration) that underwrites East Asian non-proliferation.

The recent approval of an mRNA-based seasonal-influenza vaccine by a foreign drug regulator has renewed attention on mRNA vaccine platforms and how such vaccines actually enter the Indian market. In this context, which of the following statements is correct?

Which of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is that Indian marketing authorisation for a new mRNA vaccine runs through the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, which reviews it as a New Biological Drug under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019, headed by the Drugs Controller General of India — this process is entirely independent of whatever a foreign regulator decides. The claim that foreign approval automatically confers Indian marketing authorisation is false — no such automatic-recognition mechanism exists; CDSCO conducts its own independent review. The claim that all mRNA vaccines need ultra-cold storage is false — India's own candidates, including the Omicron-specific booster developed by Gennova, are stable at ordinary refrigerator temperatures of 2-8°C, and this stability did not block their approval. The claim about India's platform being conventional and dose-identical to the foreign flu vaccine is also false — India's indigenous candidate uses a self-amplifying mRNA design specifically because it enables a distinctly lower dosing regimen, unlike a conventional mRNA construct.

The static concept

mRNA vaccine technology and India's vaccine regulatory framework — marketing authorisation via CDSCO/DCGI under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019.

A state police force's recent top ranking in a national review of cybercrime-handling capability has drawn attention to the institutional architecture India uses to coordinate action against cybercrime. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) functions as an Attached Office of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
2. 2.In November 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs designated I4C as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. 3.The National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) was launched in 2019 as I4C's citizen-facing complaint-filing initiative.
4. 4.As of August 2026, the e-Zero FIR mechanism for cyber fraud had been made functional in all States and Union Territories.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 2 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is right: the MHA designated I4C as a 'State' under Article 12 on 28 November 2024. Statement 3 is right: the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal was launched in 2019 as I4C's citizen-facing reporting initiative. Statement 1 is wrong — I4C functions as an Attached Office of the Ministry of Home Affairs (with effect from 1 July 2024), not MeitY; policing and internal security are MHA's domain, while MeitY administers IT-sector regulation more broadly. Statement 4 is wrong — as of August 2026, e-Zero FIR was functional in only 19 States, not all States and Union Territories.

The static concept

Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) — MHA's nodal coordination architecture for cybercrime, including S4Cs, NCRP, and its Article 12 'State' status

India's federal architecture leans on a mix of constitutional and extra-constitutional bodies to mediate Centre-State relations — a balance recently back in focus amid the debate on 'handholding' laggard States while keeping a strong Centre for national functions. With reference to the following institutions and the constitutional Article (if any) under which each is established, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Finance Commission — Article 280
2. 2.Inter-State Council — Article 263
3. 3.GST Council — Article 269A
4. 4.NITI Aayog — Article 263

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs'. The Finance Commission is correctly matched — it is constituted under Article 280 to recommend tax devolution and grants-in-aid. The Inter-State Council is correctly matched — it is established under Article 263 by presidential order when public interest so requires. The GST Council pair is wrong — it is established under Article 279A, not Article 269A (which deals with the levy and apportionment of IGST between the Centre and States, a different provision entirely). The NITI Aayog pair is wrong on two counts — NITI Aayog is not a constitutional body at all (it was set up by a Union Cabinet resolution in 2015, unlike the Finance Commission or Inter-State Council), and Article 263 is already the true basis for the Inter-State Council, not NITI Aayog.

The static concept

Centre-State relations and cooperative federalism — the institutional machinery (Finance Commission, Inter-State Council, GST Council, NITI Aayog) that mediates fiscal and administrative federalism.

Delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies has drawn renewed political attention amid discussions around a prospective new Delimitation Bill. With reference to the constitutional freeze on the allocation of Lok Sabha seats among States and the procedure for amending provisions that affect a State's parliamentary representation, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The freeze on the total number of Lok Sabha seats allotted to each State, based on the 1971 Census, was first imposed by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
2. 2.Because the total number of seats per State is frozen, the boundaries of individual Lok Sabha constituencies within a State cannot be redrawn until the first Census conducted after 2026.
3. 3.Since the representation of States in Parliament is one of the entrenched matters listed under the proviso to Article 368(2), any future law altering a State's Lok Sabha seat share would need to be passed by a special majority in Parliament and also ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States.
4. 4.The 84th Amendment Act, 2001 extended the freeze on Lok Sabha seat allocation among States for a further period, up to the first Census to be conducted after the year 2000.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

Only one statement is correct. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 statement is wrong — the freeze on Lok Sabha seat allocation at 1971 levels was imposed by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, not the 44th, which instead dealt with matters like reworking the Right to Property and tightening Emergency provisions. The statement claiming constituency boundaries within a State could not be redrawn until after 2026 is also wrong — the 84th and 87th Amendment Acts specifically allowed the Delimitation Commission to redraw intra-State constituency boundaries using 2001 Census data (completed by 2008), even while each State's total seat count stayed frozen. The ratification statement is correct: 'representation of States in Parliament' is one of the entrenched matters under the proviso to Article 368(2), so any law reshaping a State's Lok Sabha seat share needs both a special majority in Parliament and ratification by at least half the State Legislatures. The statement about the 84th Amendment extending the freeze 'up to the first Census after 2000' is wrong — that was the ORIGINAL 42nd Amendment cut-off; the 84th Amendment actually pushed the freeze further, up to the first Census after 2026.

The static concept

Article 368 — Constitutional Amendment Procedure (entrenched matters requiring State ratification), read with Article 81/82 — Lok Sabha seat allocation and the 1971-Census-based delimitation freeze.

Consider the following pairs of Artificial Intelligence and cyber-governance initiatives of the Government of India, matched with the Ministry/Body that administers each — a mapping that has drawn renewed attention as state governments increasingly explore direct partnerships with private AI developers for public administration:

1. 1.Cyber Surakshit Bharat initiative — Ministry of Home Affairs
2. 2.IndiaAI Mission — Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
3. 3.Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) — Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
4. 4.National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (#AIforAll) — NITI Aayog
5. 5.Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three' — three of the five pairs are correctly matched. 'IndiaAI Mission — MeitY' is correct: the Mission, approved by the Union Cabinet, is implemented through MeitY. 'National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (#AIforAll) — NITI Aayog' is correct: NITI Aayog authored this 2018 strategy paper, not MeitY. 'Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — MeitY' is correct: MeitY is the administering ministry for the Act and its Rules. The remaining two pairs are swapped: 'Cyber Surakshit Bharat' is actually a MeitY initiative (built with the National e-Governance Division to train CISOs and government IT officials), not MHA's; and the 'Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)' actually sits under the Ministry of Home Affairs (it runs the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal), not MeitY. The two errors are a straight swap of the same two ministries across the two cybersecurity-flavoured initiatives.

The static concept

Institutional architecture of India's AI and cyber-governance ecosystem — MeitY (IndiaAI Mission, DPDP Act, Cyber Surakshit Bharat), NITI Aayog (National AI Strategy), and MHA (I4C, cybercrime coordination).

Why this answer

The answer is 'A is false but R is true'. Assertion A overstates the finality clause — the Presiding Officer's decision under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule is NOT immune from judicial review on every ground; the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) read down the finality clause and permitted review on grounds of mala fides, perversity, patent violation of constitutional mandates, or breach of natural justice, even though review on the merits of the decision remains barred. Reason R correctly states this Kihoto Hollohan position, so R is true. Since A is false and R is true, and R actually explains why A's absolute claim is wrong, the correct option is 'A is false but R is true'.

The static concept

Tenth Schedule, Paragraph 6 — finality of the Presiding Officer's decision on disqualification, qualified by judicial review under Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992).

Why this answer

The Assertion is true: nothing in the UNFCCC requires two Parties to formalise voluntary cooperation — such as joint research, data-sharing, or disaster-mitigation dialogue between India and China — as a ratified bilateral treaty; such engagement routinely proceeds through MoUs, working groups, or informal dialogue instead. The Reason is false: CBDR-RC is a principle differentiating the mitigation and finance obligations of developed versus developing countries under the Convention (Article 3 and the Preamble) — it says nothing about mandating that bilateral cooperation between any two Parties be formalised via a legislature-ratified treaty. Conflating CBDR-RC with a treaty-formation requirement is the trap: the principle governs differentiated responsibility, not the legal form that inter-Party cooperation must take.

The static concept

UNFCCC framework — Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), and the voluntary, non-treaty nature of inter-Party cooperation mechanisms.