Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 12 August 2026

The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) — recently in the news for endorsing a direction to Karnataka to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu — was constituted through which of the following?

Why this answer

The correct answer is that CWMA was set up via a Central Government scheme notified under Section 6A of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — the Cauvery Water Management Scheme, 2018, framed to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's award as modified by the Supreme Court. There was no separate 2018 Act of Parliament dedicated to the Cauvery basin — that misreads a scheme as a standalone statute. There is no constitutional amendment inserting any new provision after Article 262; Article 262 already empowers Parliament to legislate on inter-State river disputes, and that power was exercised long ago via the 1956 Act itself. The Supreme Court did not issue an executive order constituting CWMA under Article 142 — its 2018 judgment modified the Tribunal's award and directed the Centre to frame the implementing scheme, which the Centre then did under Section 6A.

The static concept

Article 262 — Adjudication of Inter-State River Water Disputes, operationalised via the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, including Section 6A's scheme-making power for implementation authorities.

A Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Committee is currently reviewing the ecological delineation of the Aravalli hill range, whose conservation is rooted partly in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The declaration of an 'Eco-Sensitive Zone' around a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary in India derives its enabling legal authority chiefly from which of the following?

Why this answer

The correct answer is that ESZ declaration flows from the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Under Section 3 of the EPA, the Central Government holds the general power to 'take all measures... to protect and improve environmental quality', and the MoEFCC uses this Section 3 power (via notification under the associated rules) to demarcate Eco-Sensitive Zones as buffer/shock-absorber areas around Protected Areas. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 governs the National Park or Sanctuary itself, not the buffer zone around it, so attributing the ESZ power to the Chief Wildlife Warden is wrong. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 governs diversion of forest land for non-forest use, not ESZ notification, so the State Forest Department option is wrong. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 governs access to and use of biological resources through the National Biodiversity Authority, and has no role in ESZ demarcation, so that option is also wrong.

The static concept

Eco-Sensitive Zones — buffer areas around Protected Areas, declared under the general powers of the Central Government under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Allegations of North Korean-origin missiles being used in conflicts far from the Korean peninsula have renewed attention on the international sanctions architecture targeting North Korea's weapons programmes. In this context, which of the following most accurately describes India's policy response to UN sanctions on North Korea?

Why this answer

The answer is that India implemented UNSC sanctions on North Korea by ceasing most bilateral trade from 2017, while continuing to press for full implementation of the relevant resolutions at the UN. This is correct: India acted on the UNSC sanctions despite not being an NPT signatory, because UN Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII bind all UN member states, not just NPT parties. The claim that NPT non-membership exempts India from these sanctions is wrong for exactly this reason. The claim that India voted against the 2022 US-sponsored resolution is wrong — India in fact voted FOR that resolution, which was then vetoed by China and Russia. The claim that India has abstained on every relevant vote since 2006 is wrong because it is contradicted by India's 2022 vote in favour of tightening sanctions.

The static concept

UN Security Council Chapter VII sanctions regimes (Resolutions 1718, 1874, 2270, 2375, 2397) on North Korea and their binding force on all UN member states, including non-NPT states like India.

The India-China border has recently drawn renewed attention amid the dispute over place-naming in Arunachal Pradesh and reaffirmed statements on maintaining peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). In this context, which one of the following statements about India's institutional architecture for managing the LAC is correct?

Which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is that the ITBP, India's principal force guarding the Indo-China border/LAC, operates under the operational and administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs — it is one of the Central Armed Police Forces, not the Ministry of Defence or a purely military body. The WMCC statement is wrong: it is a diplomatic-cum-military consultation mechanism coordinated through the Ministry of External Affairs, not a body reporting exclusively to the Ministry of Defence. The Border Wing Home Guards statement is wrong: per their mandate, these battalions were raised to check infiltration along recognised international borders and coastal areas, not along the LAC with China, which is a disputed, undemarcated line rather than a settled international border. The BPM statement is wrong: Border Personnel Meetings between local military commanders continue alongside, not in place of, the WMCC — the two are parallel mechanisms at different levels, and neither has replaced or discontinued the other.

The static concept

Central Armed Police Forces and border-management architecture — administrative control of the ITBP, and the distinct diplomatic/military mechanisms (WMCC, BPMs) governing the India-China LAC.

A recent Central panel examining demographic changes and illegal migration in border regions, and its engagement with Kashmiri Pandit migrants and refugee groups, has renewed attention on the constitutional and statutory provisions governing residence, settlement, and citizenship in India. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution guarantees the right to reside and settle in any part of India's territory to every person residing in India, whether or not they hold Indian citizenship.
2. 2.Under Article 19(5), the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the right to reside and settle in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of a Scheduled Tribe.
3. 3.The Scheduled-Tribe protection ground under Article 19(5) can be invoked to restrict the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), but not the right to reside and settle under Article 19(1)(e).
4. 4.The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 extends an accelerated path to Indian citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who entered India from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan on or before 31 December 2014.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 2 and 4 are correct. Statement 1 is wrong: Article 19(1)(e) is available only to citizens of India, not to every person residing here, so non-citizen migrants or refugees cannot claim it. Statement 2 is right: Article 19(5) allows reasonable restrictions on the Article 19(1)(e) right specifically to protect Scheduled Tribe interests, alongside the general-public ground. Statement 3 is wrong: the Scheduled-Tribe protection ground under Article 19(5) covers restrictions on BOTH sub-clause (d) (movement) and sub-clause (e) (residence and settlement) — it does not exclude (e). Statement 4 is right: CAA 2019 gives Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan an accelerated citizenship route if they entered India on or before 31 December 2014.

The static concept

Article 19(1)(e) — Right to reside and settle, and its Article 19(5) restriction ground protecting Scheduled Tribe interests; read alongside the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 pathway.

Maintaining peace along contested borders has repeatedly been invoked as a precondition for stable bilateral relations across India's neighbourhood, with territorial and boundary issues recurring in different forms across countries. With reference to boundary-related disputes or agreements involving India and its South Asian neighbours, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Kalapani–Lipulekh–Limpiyadhura tri-junction dispute — Nepal
2. 2.2015 Land Boundary Agreement (enclave exchange) — Bangladesh
3. 3.Teesta river water-sharing dispute — Bhutan
4. 4.Kachchatheevu island dispute — Sri Lanka
5. 5.Doklam plateau standoff (2017) — Bangladesh

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. The Kalapani–Lipulekh–Limpiyadhura tri-junction is a live territorial dispute between India and Nepal, sharpened after India's 2019 political map and Nepal's 2020 constitutional amendment asserting the area as its own. The 2015 Land Boundary Agreement, enacted via the 100th Constitutional Amendment, exchanged enclaves (chhitmahals) along the India-Bangladesh border. The Kachchatheevu island dispute concerns the uninhabited island ceded to Sri Lanka under the 1974 India-Sri Lanka maritime boundary agreement, recently re-debated domestically. The Teesta river pairing is wrong — the water-sharing dispute is with Bangladesh, not Bhutan; West Bengal's objections have stalled a formal treaty for over a decade. The Doklam pairing is wrong — the 2017 standoff was a face-off between Indian and Chinese troops on the Bhutan-China disputed plateau near the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction, and its counterpart country is Bhutan, not Bangladesh.

The static concept

India's boundary and territorial disputes/agreements with South Asian neighbours — Nepal (Kalapani), Bangladesh (Land Boundary Agreement, Teesta), Bhutan (Doklam), Sri Lanka (Kachchatheevu) — as distinct threads of India's neighbourhood foreign policy.

Maternal and child health indicators from the National Family Health Survey, along with the coverage of India's maternity-protection and child-nutrition schemes, have drawn renewed attention amid concerns over sustained breastfeeding support. In this context, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The World Health Organization recommends that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life, with breastfeeding ideally initiated within one hour of birth.
2. 2.As per the latest NFHS round, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding among children under six months has increased nationally, mirroring the rise recorded in early initiation of breastfeeding.
3. 3.The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 extends its 26-week paid maternity leave entitlement to women workers in the informal sector, closing the maternity-protection gap highlighted for such workers.
4. 4.The Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) provides a partial wage-compensation cash incentive to pregnant and lactating women, including those without formal employment benefits, for their first living child.
5. 5.Anganwadi Workers under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme are mandated to provide nutrition and lactation counselling to mothers only during the antenatal period, with no defined role after childbirth.

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 correct: WHO's exclusive breastfeeding recommendation and its one-hour early-initiation benchmark are both standard child-nutrition guidelines. Statement 4 is correct: PMMVY compensates wage loss for pregnant/lactating women, explicitly reaching women without formal maternity-leave cover. Statement 2 is wrong — the latest NFHS round shows exclusive breastfeeding under six months has actually DECLINED even as early initiation rose, the opposite of what is claimed. Statement 3 is wrong — the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 applies only to establishments employing 10 or more persons, i.e. the organised/formal sector; it does not extend to informal-sector workers, which is precisely the protection gap PMMVY was designed to partly address. Statement 5 is wrong — Anganwadi Workers under ICDS have a defined postnatal role too (growth monitoring, immunisation referral, and lactation/nutrition counselling after delivery), not just an antenatal one.

The static concept

Maternal & Child Health — NFHS breastfeeding and nutrition indicators, and the Maternity Benefit Act / PMMVY / ICDS architecture that provides maternity and child-nutrition support.

International cooperation frameworks governing space, finance, security and trade have drawn renewed attention amid deepening India-U.S. engagement in space exploration. With reference to List-I (International framework/organisation) and List-II (its defining feature), consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Artemis Accords — Non-binding U.S.-led framework of bilateral agreements, built on the Outer Space Treaty (1967), to govern cooperation in the exploration and use of the Moon and other celestial bodies
2. 2.International Monetary Fund (IMF) — A specialised agency of the United Nations that provides short-term balance-of-payments support and oversees the international monetary system
3. 3.Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) — A Eurasian political, economic and security grouping of which India and Pakistan are full members, but the United States is not
4. 4.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — A cartel of major oil-exporting countries that coordinates petroleum production and pricing policy among its members

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The correct answer is 'Only three pairs' — pairs 1, 2 and 3 are correctly matched; pair 4 is not. The Artemis Accords are indeed a non-binding, U.S.-led set of bilateral arrangements grounded in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, used to coordinate lunar and space exploration among partner states. The IMF is genuinely a UN specialised agency whose core function is short-term balance-of-payments assistance and oversight of the international monetary system. The SCO description is accurate — India and Pakistan became full members in 2017, and the United States holds no membership or observer status. Pair 4 fails: coordinating petroleum production and pricing among oil-exporting members is OPEC's (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) role, not the OECD's, which instead groups largely high-income market economies that coordinate policies for economic growth and development — the near-identical acronyms are the trap.

The static concept

International governance and economic-cooperation architecture — the distinct mandates and institutional status of IMF, SCO, OECD/OPEC, and soft-law frameworks such as the Artemis Accords.

Why this answer

A is true: India formally acceded to the Artemis Accords in June 2023, and this cooperative posture continues through mechanisms such as the India-U.S. Civil Space Joint Working Group, which recently saw NASA invite ISRO to join its Moon Base programme. R is false: the Artemis Accords are NOT a binding treaty and are not registered with the UN as one — they are a set of non-binding political commitments and bilateral agreements grounded in the existing Outer Space Treaty, 1967, which they explicitly reaffirm rather than supersede. Since A is true and R is false, the correct code is 'A is true, but R is false'.

The static concept

International space cooperation frameworks — the Outer Space Treaty, 1967 and the non-binding Artemis Accords governing lunar exploration.

Why this answer

The answer is 'A true, R false'. Assertion (A) is factually accurate — South Africa filed a case against Israel under the Genocide Convention, and the ICJ has issued provisional measures orders while merits proceedings remain pending, not concluded. Reason (R) is false: the ICJ does NOT have automatic or compulsory jurisdiction over all UN member states for every treaty dispute. Its jurisdiction is consent-based under Article 36 of its Statute — a state must have accepted the Court's jurisdiction either via a compromissory clause in a specific treaty (here, Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to which both South Africa and Israel are parties), a special agreement, or an optional-clause declaration. There is no blanket compulsory jurisdiction; many states, including major powers, have never accepted general compulsory jurisdiction.

The static concept

International Court of Justice — jurisdiction under Article 36 of the ICJ Statute (consent-based: compromissory clauses, special agreements, optional-clause declarations), distinguished from ICC's individual-criminal jurisdiction.