Daily Current Affairs Quiz for UPSC Prelims 2027 — 23 August 2026

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) — whose 2022 notice to the Assam government on construction inside Kaziranga National Park's animal corridors and Eco-Sensitive Zone has recently drawn renewed attention — derives its permanent statutory authority from which of the following?

Why this answer

The correct answer is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The CEC was first created by a Supreme Court order in 2002 in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, but it gained permanent statutory status only through a Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notification dated September 5, 2023, issued under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, following Supreme Court directions. It is not constituted under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, despite overseeing wildlife-corridor and protected-area matters like Kaziranga's ESZ. It is also distinct from the National Green Tribunal, a separate adjudicatory body created under its own 2010 Act, and from the Indian Forest Act, 1927, a colonial-era statute that plays no role in the CEC's constitution.

The static concept

Central Empowered Committee (CEC) — a Supreme Court-instituted body (2002, Godavarman case) monitoring forest and wildlife conservation orders, given permanent statutory status under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in 2023.

The recent shipment of Ebola vaccine doses to an outbreak-hit Central African country has renewed attention on the global governance architecture behind equitable vaccine access during public health emergencies. In this context, which of the following statements most accurately describes the International Coordinating Group (ICG) on Vaccine Provision?

Why this answer

The correct answer is that the ICG on Vaccine Provision is a multi-agency consortium — WHO, IFRC, MSF, and UNICEF — funded by Gavi, established in 2021 to manage the global Ebola vaccine stockpile. It is NOT run solely by WHO; that overstates WHO's role and ignores its partner agencies. It is also distinct from SAGE, which is a WHO expert advisory body that issues immunization-policy recommendations (such as its May 2024 guidance on preventive Ebola vaccination for frontline workers) but does not itself hold or allocate stockpiled doses. Finally, the ICG is not a bilateral manufacturer-CEPI arrangement bypassing WHO — CEPI's role is funding vaccine R&D (such as the ChAdOx1 BDBV candidate), a separate function from stockpile coordination.

The static concept

Global Health Security architecture — WHO's outbreak-response ecosystem, including the International Coordinating Group (ICG) on Vaccine Provision and its distinction from SAGE and CEPI.

Renewed public attention on how large private wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centres in India source, hold, and manage animals has put the relationship between different wildlife conservation approaches back in focus. In this context, which of the following statements correctly describes the relationship between in-situ and ex-situ conservation, and the legal regime governing captive-held scheduled species in India?

Why this answer

The correct statement is the one describing in-situ conservation as protection within natural habitats, with ex-situ conservation (zoos, gene banks, breeding centres) framed by the Convention on Biological Diversity as predominantly complementary to in-situ measures — never a substitute. The 'equally primary' claim inverts this hierarchy; the CBD explicitly subordinates ex-situ conservation to habitat-based protection. The '90 days' registration claim is a near-miss on the real Section 49M timeline, which requires registration within thirty days of possession (or six months of the rules' commencement for existing possessors), not ninety. The claim restricting in-situ to plants and ex-situ to animals is also wrong — in-situ conservation covers both plant and animal species in protected habitats, and ex-situ conservation includes botanical gardens for plants alongside zoos for animals.

The static concept

Ex-situ vs In-situ Conservation — CBD Article 9 frames ex-situ measures as complementary to primary in-situ protection; India's Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended 2022) regulates possession, transfer, and CITES-aligned registration of ex-situ-held scheduled species.

A recent Supreme Court ruling arising from a floodplain-encroachment dispute set aside an NGT finding against a private event organiser, while separately faulting the licensing civic authority for permitting the event on an active river floodplain. Which of the following best explains why the doctrines the NGT is mandated to apply justify treating the private organiser and the licensing authority differently on these facts?

Why this answer

The correct option is the first: polluter-pays attaches liability to a party only when a specific, provable increment of harm is traced to it, which is exactly why the Court set aside the finding against the organiser once the NGT failed to isolate new damage from the floodplain's pre-existing degraded state. The public trust doctrine, by contrast, binds the State (here, the licensing authority) as trustee of the resource for the public and future generations, regardless of whether a discrete harm increment is proven — so the authority's lapse in permitting use of an ecologically sensitive floodplain remained a live fault. The precautionary-principle option is wrong because that principle governs anticipatory action against uncertain FUTURE risk, not a post-hoc presumption of guilt for unproven past damage. The public-trust option is wrong because it reverses who the doctrine binds — it is squarely a State-facing fiduciary duty, not one confined to private licensees. The jurisdiction option is wrong because the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is one of the seven Schedule I laws, so the NGT's original jurisdiction over environmental degradation of this kind was never in doubt; the dispute in the Court was over causation, not jurisdiction.

The static concept

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Schedule I original jurisdiction, precautionary principle, polluter-pays principle, and the public trust doctrine as applied to floodplain/wetland protection.

The Crew Escape System (CES) of ISRO's Gaganyaan mission — its last line of defence for astronauts during a launch emergency — has recently drawn renewed attention amid testing milestones. With reference to the CES and its validation, consider the following statements:

1. 1.The Gaganyaan CES uses a 'puller' type design, the same escape configuration used by SpaceX's Crew Dragon on the Falcon 9.
2. 2.The CES is triggered automatically by the Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) system upon detecting an anomaly in the launch vehicle.
3. 3.The Pad Abort Test (2018) validated the CES during an in-flight abort at transonic conditions, while the Test Vehicle Abort Mission-1 (2023) demonstrated safe crew module recovery from a launchpad exigency.
4. 4.The CES is mounted at the forward end of the Human-rated LVM3 (HLVM3), above the crew module.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two' — statements 2 and 4 are correct. Statement 2 is right: the IVHM system continuously monitors the launch vehicle and automatically triggers the CES on detecting an anomaly. Statement 4 is right: the CES sits at the forward end of the HLVM3, above the crew module, so it can pull the module clear. Statement 1 is wrong — Gaganyaan's CES is a 'puller' type (motors ahead of the capsule pull it away), whereas SpaceX's Crew Dragon uses a 'pusher' type (integrated thrusters push the capsule away); attributing the same design to both is a false equivalence. Statement 3 is wrong — the roles are swapped: the 2018 Pad Abort Test validated recovery from a launchpad exigency, while the 2023 TV-D1 mission validated an in-flight abort at transonic altitude.

The static concept

ISRO's Human Spaceflight Programme — Gaganyaan Crew Escape System (CES), IVHM-triggered abort, and its phased ground/flight validation (PAT, TV-D1).

With reference to the constitutional and statutory provisions governing India's electoral machinery and anti-defection framework — recently back in focus amid disputes over the electoral roll revision process — consider the following pairs (List-I: Provision — List-II: Subject):

1. 1.Tenth Schedule — Disqualification of a legislator on the ground of defection
2. 2.Article 324 — Superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls
3. 3.Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Preparation and revision of electoral rolls
4. 4.Article 191 — Disqualification of a member of the Lok Sabha on the ground of defection
5. 5.Section 21, Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Punishment for a false declaration in a Form 7 application

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs' — only the Tenth Schedule and Article 324 pairings are correctly matched. The Tenth Schedule pairing is correct: it is the constitutional provision governing disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection. The Article 324 pairing is correct: it vests the ECI with superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 pairing is wrong — preparation and revision of electoral rolls is the domain of the RPA, 1950 (Section 21); the 1951 Act instead governs conduct of elections, candidates, and election disputes. The Article 191 pairing is wrong — Article 191 disqualifies members of a State Legislature on grounds of defection, not the Lok Sabha, which falls under Article 102. The Section 21 pairing is wrong — Section 21 of the RPA, 1950 mandates preparation and revision of electoral rolls; punishment for a false Form 7 declaration falls under Section 31, not Section 21.

The static concept

Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) read alongside Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 — the constitutional and statutory architecture of India's electoral-roll and defection-disqualification machinery.

The U.K.'s national weather agency has recently forecast an especially intense El Niño phase, reviving attention on how this Pacific Ocean phenomenon shapes global temperature and rainfall patterns. With reference to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), consider the following statements:

1. 1.El Niño refers to the anomalous warming of sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.
2. 2.A strong El Niño phase is typically associated with above-normal rainfall during the Indian summer monsoon, as a weakened Walker Circulation intensifies moisture convergence over the subcontinent.
3. 3.ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon, in which 'El Niño/La Niña' denotes the oceanic component and the 'Southern Oscillation' denotes the corresponding see-saw in surface air pressure between the eastern and western tropical Pacific.
4. 4.El Niño events recur at a fixed periodicity of exactly two years, allowing their onset to be predicted with certainty several years in advance.
5. 5.A La Niña phase, marked by anomalous cooling of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, is generally associated with a stronger-than-normal Indian summer monsoon.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only three' — statements 1, 3, and 5 are correct. Statement 1 is right: El Niño is the anomalous warming of sea-surface temperatures in the central-eastern equatorial Pacific. Statement 3 is right: ENSO couples the oceanic warming/cooling (El Niño/La Niña) with the atmospheric pressure see-saw (Southern Oscillation) between Darwin and Tahiti. Statement 5 is right: La Niña's cooler Pacific strengthens trade winds and typically brings a stronger Indian summer monsoon. Statement 2 is wrong — it reverses the real relationship: a strong El Niño weakens the Walker Circulation and is generally linked to below-normal, not above-normal, monsoon rainfall over India; that above-normal association actually belongs to La Niña. Statement 4 is wrong — El Niño recurs irregularly at intervals of roughly two to seven years, not a fixed two years, and its onset is monitored via evolving ocean-atmosphere indices, not predicted with certainty years ahead.

The static concept

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) — the coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon and its impact on the Indian summer monsoon and global temperature anomalies.

Self-help-group (SHG) led livelihood missions have drawn renewed attention amid state-level initiatives such as Kerala's Onam fair drives by women's collectives. With reference to such SHG and rural-livelihood missions and the agency/ministry that administers each, consider the following pairs:

1. 1.Kudumbashree Mission — Kerala State Poverty Eradication Mission
2. 2.Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana–National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM) — Ministry of Rural Development
3. 3.Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP) — Ministry of Women and Child Development
4. 4.Self-Help Group–Bank Linkage Programme (SHG-BLP) — Reserve Bank of India

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Why this answer

The answer is 'Only two pairs'. Pair 1 is correct — Kudumbashree Mission is implemented by the Kerala State Poverty Eradication Mission (KSPEM), a society under the Kerala government, which is why the Ernakulam district unit can independently run its Onam fairs. Pair 2 is correct — DAY-NRLM is the Union scheme administered by the Ministry of Rural Development, the umbrella under which state missions like Kudumbashree function. Pair 3 is wrong — the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana is a sub-component of DAY-NRLM itself, so it too falls under the Ministry of Rural Development, not the Ministry of Women and Child Development. Pair 4 is wrong — the SHG-Bank Linkage Programme's nodal agency is NABARD, not the Reserve Bank of India; RBI regulates the banking system but does not run the linkage programme.

The static concept

Self-Help Group (SHG) and rural-livelihood mission architecture — Kudumbashree, DAY-NRLM, MKSP, and the SHG-Bank Linkage Programme, and the ministries/agencies that administer each.

Why this answer

The Assertion is true: Parliament's power under Article 3 to alter a State's boundaries or form a new State does not require the concerned State Legislature's agreement — this is precisely why reorganisations like the 2014 bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh went through despite the State Assembly's opposition. The Reason is false: the proviso to Article 3 only requires the President to refer the Bill to the State Legislature concerned for expressing its 'views' within a specified period — it does not require the Legislature's 'concurrence', and even those views, once received, are not binding on Parliament. So R misstates a non-binding consultative step as a binding precondition, which is why R cannot be the (or any) explanation of A.

The static concept

Article 3 — Parliament's power to form new States and alter the areas, boundaries, or names of existing States, subject only to presidential recommendation and a non-binding reference to the State Legislature concerned.

Why this answer

Both A and R are true, and R correctly explains A. Assertion A is true: E20 blending has expanded sharply, yet India's overall import bill has not fallen in proportion, because the programme has shifted a chunk of import dependence from crude oil to maize rather than eliminating it. Reason R is true and is the correct explanation: nearly half of India's ethanol now comes from maize, up from negligible levels a few years ago, and this rising domestic demand has forced India to import maize, directly offsetting the crude-oil savings EBP is meant to generate. The two statements are causally linked — R explains exactly why A holds — so the pairing 'Both true, R is the correct explanation' is correct, not the weaker 'both true but unrelated' option.

The static concept

External Sector — import substitution schemes and their net effect on India's trade/current account balance, viewed through the Ethanol Blending Programme's feedstock economics.