Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 15 August 2026

The Kuril Islands dispute between Russia and Japan — where sovereignty over the southernmost islands of the chain remains unresolved decades after the Second World War — has recently drawn renewed attention. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an unresolved dispute over sovereignty of this kind most directly affects which of the following?

Why this answer

The answer is the determination of baselines and the resulting territorial sea, contiguous zone, and EEZ. Under UNCLOS, a coastal state's maritime zones are measured outward from baselines along territory it holds sovereign title to — so which state holds title to the islands directly decides whose baseline, and hence whose maritime zone, applies around them. This is the 'land dominates the sea' doctrine underlying Parts II and V of UNCLOS. The archipelagic-baseline option fails because Article 47 baselines are reserved for archipelagic States whose territory is constituted wholly of island groups (e.g., Indonesia, the Philippines) — a mainland state's outlying islands do not qualify, regardless of any sovereignty dispute. Innocent passage is guaranteed through any state's territorial sea irrespective of which state holds sovereignty, so it is unaffected by a change in sovereign title. Classification of waters as part of the 'Area' is likewise unaffected — the Area refers only to seabed beyond the limits of any national jurisdiction, well outside the territorial sea or EEZ these islands generate either way.

The static concept

UNCLOS baselines and maritime zone entitlements — the 'land dominates the sea' doctrine: a state's territorial sea, contiguous zone, and EEZ are measured from baselines along territory it holds sovereign title to (UNCLOS Parts II and V).

The recent resurgence of ethnic violence in Manipur has renewed attention on the constitutional and legal framework for internal security in the State. With reference to this framework, which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is that Article 371C creates a Committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly for the Hill Areas and gives the Governor a special responsibility to report annually to the President on Hill Areas administration — this is exactly what the Constitution provides. The AFSPA statement is wrong because the Act applies to a State or Union Territory only after it (or part of it) is formally declared a 'disturbed area' by the Central or State Government — it is not a blanket, automatic power across the whole North-East. The 'exclusive MHA responsibility' statement is wrong because police and public order are State subjects; the Ministry of Home Affairs plays a coordinating and central-deployment role, but the State Government retains its own constitutional responsibility. The claim about AFSPA being extended to all of Manipur in April 2022 is wrong and inverts the actual event — that was when the Union Home Ministry reduced AFSPA's coverage, withdrawing it fully or partly from several districts of Assam, Manipur and Nagaland, not extending it.

The static concept

Article 371C — special provisions for the State of Manipur (Hill Areas Committee, Governor's report to the President) and the AFSPA 'disturbed area' framework for internal security.

The ongoing shortage of certain price-capped chemotherapy drugs has renewed attention on how ceiling prices of essential medicines are fixed and revised in India. With reference to the mechanism under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), 2013, which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the first: under DPCO 2013, the ceiling price of a scheduled formulation is the simple average of the retail prices of all brands with more than 1% market share for that formulation, and this ceiling is permitted an annual increase in line with the Wholesale Price Index (WPI). The second statement fails because it drops the >1% market-share threshold, wrongly averaging in negligible-share brands. The third statement wrongly describes a cost-plus, cost-audited fixation method — that was a feature of the pre-2013 cost-based DPCO regime, not the market-based DPCO 2013 formula. The fourth statement gets the market-share threshold right but wrongly pegs the annual revision to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of the WPI.

The static concept

Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), 2013 — issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, governing the fixation and annual WPI-linked revision of ceiling prices for NLEM-listed scheduled formulations.

ISRO's reputation for 'frugal' space missions is often cited as evidence of low launch costs, but a recent economic study places India's per-kilogram cost to Low Earth Orbit above that of the United States, China, Russia, Europe and Japan. Which one of the following most accurately explains this finding?

Why this answer

The correct explanation is that ISRO's low launch cadence — it flew small rockets and recorded only five launches in 2025 — has kept it from spreading fixed costs across enough flights to trigger an experience-curve cost decline, the mechanism that has statistically lowered costs for the US and Europe since 2010; this is why India's assessed per-kg cost to LEO ($13,302) tops the US ($3,225), China ($5,809), Russia ($6,682), Japan ($5,287) and Europe ($9,897). The cryogenic-stage claim is a false attribution — stage propulsion type is not the driver identified in the study. The concessional-pricing claim misdirects blame onto foreign-customer pricing rather than cadence economics. The import-duty claim invents a mechanism the study does not identify and wrongly implies China's programme is 'fully indigenous', which overstates China's self-sufficiency.

The static concept

ISRO launch vehicle economics — cost per kilogram to orbit, launch cadence and the experience curve, as distinct from mission-design frugality.

The prolonged pre-trial incarceration of persons accused under anti-terror legislation has renewed attention on the interplay between Article 21 and statutory bail restrictions. With reference to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and its judicial interpretation, consider the following statements:

1. 1.Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, 1967, which restricts the grant of bail where the accusation is found prima facie true, was introduced into the Act by an amendment in 2008.
2. 2.In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Supreme Court held that Section 43D(5) creates an absolute bar on bail that constitutional courts cannot relax under any circumstances.
3. 3.The K.A. Najeeb judgment held that prolonged incarceration coupled with no likelihood of an early trial conclusion can justify constitutional courts granting bail under Article 21, notwithstanding Section 43D(5).
4. 4.The K.A. Najeeb judgment expressly overruled the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019).

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 1 is right: the strict bail proviso under Section 43D(5) was inserted into the UAPA by a 2008 amendment. Statement 3 is right: K.A. Najeeb (2021) held that prolonged incarceration with no realistic prospect of an early trial can justify constitutional courts granting bail under Article 21 despite Section 43D(5). Statement 2 is wrong — the Court did not treat Section 43D(5) as an absolute, unreviewable bar; it held constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail to enforce Part III rights. Statement 4 is wrong — Najeeb did not overrule NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019); it carved out a constitutional limitation on Section 43D(5) alongside Watali's 'prima facie true' standard, without negating it.

The static concept

Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty, judicially expanded to include the right to a speedy trial, and its interplay with special bail restrictions under anti-terror legislation such as UAPA Section 43D(5).

Milestone anniversaries of Bengaluru-based wildlife rescue and rehabilitation hospitals have drawn renewed attention to the institutional and legal architecture governing wildlife protection and animal welfare in India. With reference to this architecture, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Animal Welfare Board of India — Established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
2. 2.Administrative control of the Animal Welfare Board of India — Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
3. 3.Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 — Reduced the number of Schedules under the parent Act to four, aligning with CITES
4. 4.Animal Welfare Board of India — Composed of 15 members, reconstituted every five years
5. 5.Rukmini Devi Arundale — Founder Chairperson of the Animal Welfare Board of India

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three pairs'. Correct: the Animal Welfare Board of India was indeed set up under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, not the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Correct: the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 did consolidate the schedules to four, explicitly to align India's framework with CITES. Correct: Rukmini Devi Arundale was the Board's Founder Chairperson. Wrong: the Board's administrative control does NOT sit with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change — it moved to the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying in April 2019, a distinct ministry from the one that administers the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Wrong: the Board has 28 members, not 15, and is reconstituted every three years, not five.

The static concept

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Animal Welfare Board of India (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960) — two distinct but overlapping legal-institutional tracks for wildlife protection and animal welfare.

Nepal's position between India and China as a Himalayan 'buffer state' has drawn renewed attention amid regional debate over Kathmandu's foreign-policy autonomy. With reference to the treaties and demographic realities that shape the India-Nepal-China relationship, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950) grants citizens of either country reciprocal rights of residence, property ownership, and business on a national-treatment basis in the other country.
2. 2.Nepal's formal recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was first codified during the Rana regime, prior to 1950.
3. 3.Nepal hosts one of the largest Tibetan refugee populations outside India, the bulk of whom arrived following the Dalai Lama's 1959 flight from Lhasa.
4. 4.Nepal abolished its centuries-old Hindu monarchy in 2015, the same year in which its new secular constitution was promulgated.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 1 is right: Articles 6-7 of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship give Indian and Nepali citizens reciprocal residence, property, and business rights on a national-treatment basis. Statement 3 is right: Nepal hosts a large Tibetan refugee population, most of whom fled after the Dalai Lama's 1959 exile. Statement 2 is wrong — Nepal's formal recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was codified through the 1956 Sino-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, under Nepal's post-Rana democratic government, not during the Rana regime, which ended in 1951. Statement 4 is wrong — Nepal's Constituent Assembly abolished the monarchy in 2008; the new constitution was promulgated seven years later in 2015, not the same year.

The static concept

India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950 — reciprocal citizen rights, open border, and the strategic 'buffer state' logic of Himalayan geopolitics between India and China.

The question of an occupying power's obligations in occupied territory has drawn renewed attention amid recent West Bank developments. With reference to international legal instruments on occupied Palestinian territory, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) — Prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies
2. 2.UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) — Declares Israeli settlements in the West Bank a 'flagrant violation' of international law with no legal validity
3. 3.UNSC Resolution 2334 (2016) — Affirms the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war' and calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967
4. 4.ICJ Advisory Opinion (2004, Wall case) — Held that the route of the West Bank separation barrier, where it deviates from the 1967 Green Line, violates international law
5. 5.UNGA Resolution 181 (1947) — Recognised the Palestinian refugees' 'right of return'

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

Only two pairs are correctly matched. Pair 1 is correct: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention bars an occupying power from settling its own population in occupied territory. Pair 4 is correct: the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion in the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall' case held the barrier illegal wherever it departs from the Green Line. Pair 2 is wrong — the 'flagrant violation, no legal validity' language on settlements belongs to Resolution 2334 (2016), not Resolution 242 (1967). Pair 3 is wrong — 'inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war' and the withdrawal call is the substance of Resolution 242 (1967), not Resolution 2334; the two resolutions' contents have been swapped. Pair 5 is wrong — Resolution 181 (1947) is the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine; the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees is the substance of Resolution 194 (1948).

The static concept

International law on occupied territories — the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 49), the UNSC framework resolutions (242, 2334), and ICJ advisory jurisprudence, as applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Why this answer

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A. Iran controls the northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil consumption transits daily; this chokepoint leverage means any coercive move against Iran risks disrupting oil supply and spiking prices for consumers, including in the U.S. That direct link is precisely why U.S. policymakers have, at points, prioritised oil-price stabilisation over nuclear non-proliferation when dealing with Iran — R fully explains A rather than being a merely coincidental true fact alongside it.

The static concept

Chokepoint geopolitics — the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic energy-security lever in Great Power policy toward Iran.

Why this answer

The Assertion is false and the Reason is true. CBDR does NOT require every state to undertake identical, legally binding targets — that is precisely what the principle rejects. Under CBDR, obligations are differentiated by each state's historical contribution to environmental degradation and its financial/technological capacity, which is exactly why oil-producing and developing economies resist uniform binding targets in forums like the plastics-treaty talks. The Reason correctly states CBDR's origin and content as Principle 7 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, which explicitly ties differentiated responsibility to differing contributions and capabilities. Since the Reason accurately describes the real principle while the Assertion misstates it as demanding uniformity, the correct choice is 'A is false, but R is true'.

The static concept

Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) — Principle 7, Rio Declaration 1992, and its application across international environmental treaty negotiations.