Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 22 August 2026

The use of biometric surveillance technologies at sites of public demonstrations has recently drawn renewed attention to the constitutional basis of the right to protest in India. Which Article of the Constitution specifically guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, forming the foundation for organising such demonstrations?

Why this answer

The answer is Article 19(1)(b) — it guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and is the constitutional foundation for demonstrations, public meetings, and rallies. Article 19(1)(a) is a distinct sub-clause guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, not assembly. Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) is the anchor for the Right to Privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), but it does not itself guarantee assembly. Article 22 deals with protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, unrelated to the right to assemble.

The static concept

Article 19(1)(b) — Right to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms, the constitutional foundation of the right to protest, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3).

A recent surge of complaints about black particulate dust and respiratory illness in an industrial coastal city has renewed public attention on ambient air quality regulation in India. With reference to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) notified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), which one of the following statements is correct?

Why this answer

The correct statement is that NAAQS sets the PM2.5 annual limit at 40 µg/m³, far above (less strict than) the WHO guideline of 5 µg/m³ — India's standards are deliberately more lenient than WHO's. The CPCB, not the Ministry acting alone, notified the NAAQS in 2009, so the second statement misattributes the act. The 24-hour limits are not uniform across pollutants: PM10 is 100 µg/m³ but PM2.5 is only 60 µg/m³, so the third statement's 'uniform 100' claim is a near-miss numeral. NAAQS explicitly prescribe separate residential/rural limits (e.g., PM10 24-hour = 100 µg/m³ for residential/rural areas), so the claim that they exclude residential and rural zones is false.

The static concept

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) — CPCB-notified limits for 12 pollutants under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

A State Public Service Commission chairman was suspended by the Governor pending an inquiry, and the suspension order was later challenged in the High Court on grounds relating to how the Governor's power was exercised. In this constitutional context, which one of the following most accurately describes the position on removal and suspension of a member of a State Public Service Commission (SPSC)?

Why this answer

The correct position is that the Governor may suspend a State PSC member during a pending Supreme Court inquiry into misbehaviour, but the power to actually remove that member belongs solely to the President, exercised only after the Supreme Court's inquiry under Article 145 recommends removal. The option claiming the Governor exercises the suspension power purely at his own discretion, independent of the Council of Ministers, overstates the Governor's autonomy — this suspension is generally exercised on aid and advice under Article 163(1), not as an inherent discretionary act, which is exactly the point a High Court can strike down a suspension order for want of Cabinet aid and advice. The option granting the Governor power to remove an SPSC member is wrong because Article 317(1) reserves removal exclusively for the President. The option describing removal as flowing from the State Council of Ministers' advice, without a Supreme Court inquiry, is wrong because Article 317(1) makes a Supreme Court inquiry and recommendation the mandatory precondition for removal on misbehaviour — Cabinet advice does not substitute for it.

The static concept

Article 317 — removal and suspension of a Public Service Commission member/chairman + Article 163 — Governor's discretionary powers versus the Council of Ministers' aid and advice.

Executive notifications and orders of a State Government are, under Article 166 of the Constitution, expressed to be issued in the name of the Governor — a rule that has drawn renewed attention as High Courts have stayed contested State recruitment notifications framed in this manner. With reference to the constitutional position on judicial review of such notifications, which one of the following statements is most accurate?

Why this answer

The correct statement is that Article 361 shields the Governor personally from being sued or prosecuted for acts done in exercise of official powers, but it does NOT immunise the executive order or notification itself — that action of the State Government remains fully open to judicial review under Article 226, exactly as High Courts routinely do with contested state notifications. The first option wrongly stretches Article 361's personal protection to cover the notification itself, treating 'issued in the Governor's name' as if it were 'issued by the Governor personally and therefore untouchable.' The third option is wrong because Article 226 gives High Courts concurrent and, in practice, primary writ jurisdiction over State action — Article 32 is not the exclusive route. The fourth option misreads Article 166(2): that clause only forecloses a challenge on the narrow ground that an order was 'not properly authenticated,' it does not — and cannot — bar a court from examining the order on substantive due-process or arbitrariness grounds.

The static concept

Article 166 — Conduct of business of the Government of a State (orders issued in the Governor's name) read against Article 361 — personal immunity of the Governor; judicial review of State executive action under Article 226.

With reference to India's solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing ecosystem, which has drawn renewed policy attention amid efforts to scale up the domestic polysilicon-to-module value chain, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The existing Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for solar PV manufacturing has already resulted in adequate domestic polysilicon manufacturing capacity, making any further government subsidy for this segment entirely unnecessary.
2. 2.Reducing import dependence across the solar manufacturing value chain, including in polysilicon, is linked to India's broader energy security and 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' objectives in the renewable energy sector.
3. 3.The Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (ALMM) order is administered by the Bureau of Indian Standards and applies uniformly to all solar installations in India, including private rooftop systems that receive no government subsidy.
4. 4.Polysilicon is an upstream raw material in the solar PV manufacturing chain, used in the production of ingots and wafers ahead of solar cell and module fabrication.

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: the government is developing an additional, dedicated subsidy scheme for polysilicon manufacturing precisely because the existing PLI scheme for solar PV manufacturing has NOT yielded sufficient domestic polysilicon capacity — the opposite of 'entirely unnecessary'. Statement 2 is correct: cutting import dependence across the value chain, including polysilicon, is explicitly tied to energy security and Atmanirbhar Bharat goals in the renewable sector. Statement 3 is wrong on two counts: the ALMM order is administered by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), not the Bureau of Indian Standards, and it does not apply uniformly to every installation — it governs modules used in government-supported, subsidised, and net-metered projects, not every private, unsubsidised rooftop system. Statement 4 is correct: polysilicon sits upstream in the value chain, processed into ingots and wafers before cell and module fabrication.

The static concept

National Solar Mission (Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission) and the National Programme on High Efficiency Solar PV Modules (PLI) — India's domestic solar manufacturing value chain from polysilicon through modules, and the MNRE-administered ALMM procurement mechanism.

With reference to digital and cross-border taxation instruments, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Equalisation Levy (India) — Introduced under the Finance Act, 2016
2. 2.Equalisation Levy proceeds — Creditable as a foreign tax credit under India's DTAAs
3. 3.GST Council — Constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution
4. 4.Australia's 'News Bargaining Incentive' — A charge on platform advertising revenue, waivable through commercial agreements with local publishers
5. 5.OECD's Two-Pillar Solution — Requires immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all unilateral digital taxes upon signing

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three pairs'. Pair 1 is correct — the Equalisation Levy was introduced via the Finance Act, 2016 (Chapter VIII), not as part of the Income-tax Act. Pair 2 is wrong — Equalisation Levy falls outside the scope of India's tax treaties, so non-resident entities cannot claim a foreign tax credit for it in their home country. Pair 3 is correct — the GST Council is a constitutional body set up under Article 279A. Pair 4 is correct — Australia's News Bargaining Incentive taxes platform advertising revenue but exempts platforms that strike commercial agreements with local publishers. Pair 5 is wrong — the OECD's Two-Pillar Solution ties withdrawal of unilateral digital taxes to the multilateral convention actually entering into force, not to an immediate, unconditional step at signing.

The static concept

Cross-border/Digital Taxation — India's Equalisation Levy (Finance Act, outside Income-tax Act & DTAA scope) and the GST Council under Article 279A, set against global unilateral digital-tax measures and the OECD's multilateral Two-Pillar Solution.

Five years on, the Taliban's hold over Afghanistan continues to be marked by economic distress and international isolation, keeping India's strategic engagement with its extended neighbourhood in focus. With reference to India's ties with Afghanistan in the context of South Asian regional geopolitics, consider the following statements:

1. 1.India shares no direct land border with Afghanistan, and due to Pakistan's consistent denial of overland transit rights, has developed Iran's Chabahar Port as its principal alternate route for trade and aid to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
2. 2.Afghanistan was among the founding members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) when the grouping was established in 1985.
3. 3.After suspending its diplomatic presence when the Taliban took power in 2021, India reopened a technical mission in Kabul in 2022 to coordinate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
4. 4.Since Afghanistan has no coastline of its own, India's humanitarian consignments to it, such as wheat shipments, have always been transported exclusively through Pakistani land territory, as no other route is available.

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: with no land border to Afghanistan and Pakistan refusing overland transit, India built Chabahar Port (Iran) into its main alternate corridor. Statement 3 is right: India suspended its embassy presence after the 2021 Taliban takeover but reopened a 'technical mission' in Kabul in June 2022 to oversee humanitarian assistance, without extending formal recognition. Statement 2 is wrong — Afghanistan was NOT a founding member; SAARC was established in 1985 by seven states, and Afghanistan joined only in 2007 as the eighth member. Statement 4 is wrong — the absolute claim ('always', 'exclusively', 'no other route available') fails, since Chabahar exists precisely to give India a non-Pakistan route for aid and trade with Afghanistan.

The static concept

India's connectivity diplomacy toward landlocked neighbours — Pakistan's transit-rights denial to Afghanistan, India's use of Chabahar Port (Iran) as an alternate corridor, and the calibrated non-recognition engagement with the Taliban regime since 2021.

Efforts by several countries to compel large technology platforms to compensate local news publishers, and the wider debate over taxing digital services, have renewed attention on how multilateral trade law treats goods, services, and digital transactions differently. With reference to select agreements and instruments of the World Trade Organization (WTO), consider the following pairs:

1. 1.General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) — Covers trade in services, the WTO track most relevant to cross-border digital and platform-based transactions
2. 2.Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) Agreement — Applies to investment measures related to trade in both goods and services
3. 3.Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) — Concluded as part of the WTO's Bali Ministerial Package of 2013
4. 4.WTO Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions — A permanent commitment adopted in 1995 that requires no further renewal by Ministerial Conferences
5. 5.Information Technology Agreement (ITA) — A plurilateral agreement binding only its signatories to eliminate tariffs on a listed set of IT products

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three pairs' — pairs 1, 3, and 5 are correctly matched. Pair 1 is correct: GATS is the WTO agreement governing trade in services, the closest multilateral track to cross-border digital/platform transactions. Pair 2 is wrong: the TRIMs Agreement applies ONLY to investment measures related to trade in goods, not services — a frequently-tested distinction. Pair 3 is correct: the TFA was concluded as part of the Bali Ministerial Package of 2013 (entering into force in 2017). Pair 4 is wrong on two counts: the e-commerce customs-duty moratorium was first adopted in 1998 (not 1995) and is NOT permanent — it has required periodic renewal at successive WTO Ministerial Conferences, with members like India pushing to let it lapse. Pair 5 is correct: the ITA is a plurilateral agreement, binding tariff elimination on listed IT products only among its signatories, not the full WTO membership.

The static concept

WTO Agreements Architecture — TRIMs (goods-linked investment measures), GATS (services), the plurilateral ITA, and the periodically-renewed e-commerce customs-duty moratorium — the framework governing how multilateral trade law treats goods, services, and digital transactions differently.

Why this answer

The correct option is 'A is false but R is true'. The Assertion is false: neither mRNA COVID-19 vaccines nor mRNA cancer immunotherapies deliver a live, attenuated pathogen or tumour cell — that description fits live-attenuated vaccines (e.g. MMR) or whole-cell platforms, not mRNA. The Reason is true and correctly describes the actual mechanism: mRNA platforms deliver only the genetic code for a target antigen (a viral spike protein, or tumour-specific neoantigens in the cancer case), which the recipient's own ribosomes translate into protein to trigger an immune response, without introducing any live organism or altering the host's own DNA. Since R is a true, self-standing statement but does not explain a false A, the answer is 'A is false but R is true'.

The static concept

Vaccine Platforms & Technology — mRNA mechanism (antigen-coding, ribosomal translation, no live pathogen or genome alteration), contrasted with live-attenuated/vector/inactivated platforms.

Why this answer

Both A and R are true, and R correctly explains A. The assertion is true: despite the PLI scheme for solar PV manufacturing, India's polysilicon capacity has remained inadequate, prompting MNRE to draft an additional dedicated subsidy for this stage targeting 30 GW by 2030. The reason is also true and is the correct explanation: a PLI is inherently an output-linked, back-ended incentive — it pays out only once a firm has actually produced and sold goods above a base year — so it does not help finance the enormous upfront capital expenditure (specialised reactors, high-purity silicon refining lines, long gestation before commissioning) that polysilicon manufacturing demands. Because polysilicon refining sits furthest upstream in the solar value chain (polysilicon to wafer/cell/module), it is the most capital-intensive and slowest-to-return segment, which is exactly why an output-linked PLI alone under-incentivises it and a separate, more upfront-oriented subsidy instrument is now being designed.

The static concept

Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme design + National Solar Mission — value-chain stage-wise industrial policy and energy security in solar manufacturing.