UPSC Prelims Practice
Current Affairs Quiz 6 April 2026
Test Your Knowledge
22 questions based on today’s current affairs & editorials
Choose number of questions
Question 1 of 22
Facts
The 84th Amendment (2002) froze Lok Sabha seat allocation at 1971 Census population levels until the first Census after 2026. The original freeze was introduced by the 42nd Amendment (1976), but the 84th Amendment extended it to ensure states that controlled population were not penalised.
Analysis
While the 42nd Amendment first imposed the freeze, the operative extension that governs the current situation is the 84th Amendment, a distinction UPSC often tests.
Concept note
The 42nd Amendment (1976) first froze seats at 1971 Census levels until Census 2001. The 84th Amendment (2002) extended this freeze further until the first Census conducted after 2026.
This was done because southern states (Kerala, TN, Karnataka, AP) had significantly lower TFR than northern states (UP, Bihar, MP), allocating seats by current population would reward states that did not control population growth. Article 81 governs Lok Sabha composition (currently not exceeding 550 from states + 20 from UTs).
Article 82 requires readjustment after every Census. Article 329(a) bars courts from questioning delimitation.
The Delimitation Commission is appointed under the Delimitation Commission Act, 2002, chaired by a retired SC judge.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, Delimitation, federalism, population policy; GS1, Population and demographic transition. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Delimitation, 84th Amendment, Article 81, TFR, demographic dividend, southern states concern. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Attributing the seat freeze to the 42nd Amendment alone, while the 42nd first froze seats, the 84th extended it until after 2026. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2020 tested delimitation; know the 42nd (first freeze) vs 84th (extension) distinction and Articles 81, 82, 329(a). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Is population-based representation inherently fair, or should states that achieved demographic transition be rewarded with maintained or increased representation? |
Question 2 of 22
Facts
The 2026 amendment changes Section 5 of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, replacing “a new capital for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh” with “Amaravati shall be the new capital.” Section 3 deals with formation of Telangana, Section 8 with asset division.
Analysis
By embedding the capital in a Central Act (under Article 3), the designation becomes a matter of parliamentary authority, the state cannot unilaterally change it.
Concept note
The AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 bifurcated Andhra Pradesh to create Telangana. Hyderabad served as the joint capital for 10 years (2014-2024).
CM Chandrababu Naidu (TDP) selected Amaravati in 2015. CM Jagan Mohan Reddy (YSRCP) proposed three capitals in 2019, Amaravati (legislative), Visakhapatnam (executive), Kurnool (judicial), which the AP High Court struck down.
Article 3 gives Parliament the power to form, alter, and reorganise states. The Constitution does not explicitly define state capitals, the First Schedule lists states and territories but not capitals.
Amaravati has historical significance as the capital of the Satavahana dynasty (2nd century BCE).
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, State reorganisation, Article 3, Centre-State relations; GS1, Historical capitals, Satavahana dynasty. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | AP Reorganisation Act 2014, Section 5, Article 3, Amaravati, state capital, federal structure. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking states can unilaterally change their capital, when the capital is designated in a Central Act (under Article 3), only Parliament can change it. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2021 tested Article 3 provisions; know the mandatory Presidential reference to state legislature (whose opinion is not binding on Parliament). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Should state capitals be decided by state legislatures or Parliament, does parliamentary designation through reorganisation acts undermine state autonomy? |
Question 3 of 22
Facts
India has issued 3,561 IRCCs out of 6,311 globally, over 56% of all certificates worldwide. Only 34 of 142 registered countries have issued any IRCCs. France (964), Spain (320), and Argentina (257) follow India.
Analysis
India’s dominance reflects its strong domestic legislation (Biological Diversity Act, 2002), active National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), and a grassroots network of ~2.8 lakh Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
Concept note
The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) was adopted on October 29, 2010 in Nagoya, Japan and entered into force on October 12, 2014. It is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992).
IRCCs (Internationally Recognised Certificates of Compliance) confirm that Prior Informed Consent (PIC) was obtained and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) were established for genetic resource access. India ratified the Nagoya Protocol on October 9, 2012, before it entered into force.
NBA (Chennai) has mobilised Rs 216.31 crore since 2017, with Rs 139.69 crore disbursed to local communities. India’s Biological Diversity Act 2002 predates the Nagoya Protocol itself.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Biodiversity conservation, Nagoya Protocol, ABS; GS2, International environmental governance. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Nagoya Protocol, IRCC, PIC, MAT, NBA, BMC, biopiracy, ABS, CBD. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Confusing the Nagoya Protocol (ABS) with the Cartagena Protocol (biosafety of living modified organisms), both are under CBD but address different issues. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2019 tested CBD protocols; know: CBD (1992), Cartagena Protocol (2003, biosafety), Nagoya Protocol (2014, ABS). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India issues 56% of global IRCCs but is still victim of biopiracy (turmeric, neem cases), does the IRCC system actually prevent biopiracy or just document access? |
Question 4 of 22
Facts
The 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2023, officially called the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, reserves one-third (33%) of seats in Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for women. With Lok Sabha expanding to 816 seats, this translates to approximately 272 reserved seats for women. The reservation was linked to delimitation and Census.
Analysis
At 33% of 816, India would have ~272 women MPs, making it one of the highest women’s representation rates in any national legislature.
Concept note
The women’s reservation bill was first introduced in 1996 by the Deve Gowda government but failed repeatedly due to OBC sub-reservation demands. It was passed as the 108th Amendment by the Rajya Sabha in 2010 but lapsed when the Lok Sabha was dissolved.
Finally passed as the 106th Amendment in September 2023 during the special session in the new Parliament building. Key provision: reservation is to be implemented AFTER the first Census and delimitation conducted after the Act, meaning it required delimitation to proceed first.
Reserved seats will rotate every 15 years. SC/ST women get reservation within the existing SC/ST quota.
The Act applies to Lok Sabha and state assemblies but NOT Rajya Sabha or state legislative councils.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, Women’s representation, constitutional amendments, delimitation; GS1, Women’s empowerment, gender equality. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, 106th Amendment, 33% reservation, women MPs, delimitation, rotation of seats. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking women’s reservation applies to Rajya Sabha, it applies only to Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, not upper houses. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2024 may test the 106th Amendment; know: linked to Census + delimitation, 33% not 50%, rotation every 15 years, no Rajya Sabha coverage. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Does 33% reservation with rotation every 15 years create institutional instability, would a permanent quota without rotation be more effective? |
Question 5 of 22
Facts
The FDI limit in Indian private sector banks is 74% (raised from 49% in 2021). Up to 49% is allowed through the automatic route; beyond 49% requires Government approval. Public sector banks have a lower FDI limit of 20%.
The Emirates NBD deal at $3 billion for 74% of RBL Bank is the largest FDI in Indian banking.
Analysis
The 74% limit allows foreign capital while the voting rights cap at 26% prevents governance control, a deliberately designed regulatory asymmetry.
Concept note
The FDI policy in banking: Private sector banks, 74% (automatic up to 49%, government route beyond); Public sector banks, 20% (government route); Foreign bank subsidiaries, 100% (RBI + government approval). The voting rights cap at 26% means that even with 74% ownership, the foreign investor cannot control the bank’s board or decision-making disproportionately.
RBL Bank (formerly Ratnakar Bank, est. 1943, Kolhapur) has ~500 branches. Emirates NBD is the largest banking group in the Middle East (~$250B in assets); Government of Dubai holds 55.8%.
India-UAE CEPA (2022) opened services sectors including banking. The deal requires both RBI and Government of India approval (beyond 49%).
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, FDI in banking, financial sector reforms, RBI regulation; GS2, India-UAE bilateral relations, CEPA. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | FDI in banking, 74% cap, voting rights 26%, Banking Regulation Act, Emirates NBD, RBL Bank, CEPA. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Assuming 74% FDI gives 74% voting rights, voting rights are capped at 26% regardless of ownership percentage. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2023 tested FDI limits in banking; memorise: Private banks 74%, PSBs 20%, voting rights cap 26%. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Should India allow 100% FDI in private banks to attract more capital, or does the 74% limit with voting cap strike the right balance between openness and sovereignty? |
Question 6 of 22
Facts
INS Taragiri is the fourth ship of the Nilgiri-class (Project 17A) stealth frigates, commissioned on April 3, 2026 at Visakhapatnam. Project 17A is the evolution of Project 17 (Shivalik-class), with enhanced stealth features and BrahMos capability. Seven ships are planned, 4 by MDL (Mumbai) and 3 by GRSE (Kolkata).
Analysis
The Nilgiri-class naming convention follows mountain peaks in the Western Ghats, Nilgiri, Udaygiri, Dunagiri, Taragiri.
Concept note
Indian Navy ship classes: Nilgiri-class (Project 17A), stealth frigates (7 ships); Visakhapatnam-class (Project 15B), guided-missile destroyers (4 ships); Shivalik-class (Project 17), predecessor frigates (3 ships); Kamorta-class, ASW corvettes (4 ships); Kalvari-class, Scorpene-class diesel-electric submarines (6 ships). SAIL supplies DMR-249A grade steel (~4,000 tonnes per frigate) from Bokaro, Bhilai, and Rourkela.
MDL (Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders, Mumbai) and GRSE (Garden Reach Shipbuilders, Kolkata) are the two primary warship builders. The Warship Design Bureau of the Indian Navy designs these ships indigenously.
India has 60+ ships under simultaneous construction across its shipyards.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Defence indigenisation, naval shipbuilding, Aatmanirbhar Bharat; GS2, India’s maritime security. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Project 17A, Nilgiri-class, INS Taragiri, MDL, GRSE, SAIL steel, Aatmanirbhar Bharat, stealth frigate. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Confusing Project 17 (Shivalik-class, 3 ships) with Project 17A (Nilgiri-class, 7 ships), 17A is the upgraded successor. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2022 tested Indian naval shipbuilding; know Project 17A = 7 frigates, split between MDL (4) and GRSE (3). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India’s 60+ ships under construction make it one of the world’s most active naval shipbuilding nations, but can domestic shipyards meet delivery timelines, given historical delays? |
Question 7 of 22
Facts
Japan established the India Economic Affairs Division under MOFA to support a bilateral target of 10 trillion yen ($62.6 billion) in private sector investment by 2035. The target was set during the 2025 bilateral summit. Focus areas include AI, startups, critical minerals, and economic security.
Analysis
Japan is the only country to establish a dedicated India economic division within its foreign ministry, signalling India’s strategic importance has moved beyond a regional desk to a standalone policy unit.
Concept note
Japan-India economic relationship: cumulative FDI since 2000 is ~$40 billion; 1,500+ Japanese companies operate in India. Major Japan-funded projects include the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC, ~$100 billion) and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train (Shinkansen technology).
Japan provides official development assistance (ODA) to India, India is the largest recipient of Japanese ODA globally. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) is the implementing body.
The India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership was elevated during PM Abe’s era. Japan’s interest in critical minerals from India relates to rare earths needed for EV batteries and semiconductors, India has significant deposits.
The Quad (India-Japan-US-Australia) has economic security as a key pillar.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, India-Japan bilateral, Quad, Act East Policy; GS3, Critical minerals, DMIC, FDI. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Japan-India, 10 trillion yen target, DMIC, JICA, critical minerals, Quad, Special Strategic Partnership. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Confusing DMIC (Japan-funded industrial corridor) with INSTC (India-Iran-Russia transport corridor), different routes and partners. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2021 tested India-Japan relations; know DMIC (Japan), Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train (Japan/JICA), and that India is the largest Japanese ODA recipient. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Japan’s supply chain diversification away from China is accelerating, can India actually absorb 10 trillion yen in investment given its infrastructure and regulatory bottlenecks? |
Question 8 of 22
1 The Delimitation Commission is appointed under the Delimitation Commission Act, 2002.
2 Orders of the Delimitation Commission can be challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
3 The Delimitation Commission is chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge.
4 The Chief Election Commissioner is an ex-officio member of the Delimitation Commission.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Facts
Statements 1, 3, and 4 are correct.
Statement 2Incorrect
Article 329(a) bars any court, including the Supreme Court, from questioning delimitation orders. Delimitation Commission orders have the force of law and cannot be challenged in any court.
Analysis
This is a critical constitutional protection, if delimitation could be judicially challenged, every constituency boundary could be litigated, paralysing elections.
Concept note
The Delimitation Commission (DC) has been constituted four times in India: 1952 (based on 1951 Census), 1963 (1961 Census), 1973 (1971 Census), and 2002 (2001 Census). Article 329(a) provides an absolute bar: “no election shall be called in question on the ground of delimitation.” The 2002 DC was chaired by Justice Kuldip Singh (retd.) and delimited all states except Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, and J&K (then a state).
The CEC and respective State Election Commissioners are associate members. Article 82 requires Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census, this triggers the appointment of the Commission.
The DC’s orders are laid before Lok Sabha and state assemblies but cannot be modified by either.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, Delimitation, ECI, constitutional provisions, judicial non-reviewability; GS1, Census and demography. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Delimitation Commission, Article 329(a), Article 82, judicial bar, CEC, constituency boundaries. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking SC can review delimitation under Article 32, Article 329(a) explicitly bars all courts from questioning delimitation orders. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2019 tested ECI composition; know DC = retired SC judge (chair) + CEC + State ECs (associate members), and that Article 329(a) is an absolute judicial bar. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Should delimitation orders be subject to at least limited judicial review to prevent gerrymandering, or does the judicial bar serve the greater democratic purpose of finality? |
Question 9 of 22
Facts
The Large Cavitation Tunnel (LCT) is being built at NSTL (Naval Science and Technological Laboratory), a DRDO lab in Visakhapatnam. NSTL specialises in underwater weapons and systems, torpedoes, mines, underwater sensors. It developed the Varunastra heavyweight torpedo.
Analysis
The LCT is globally unique because it can conduct both closed-loop (submarine) and free-surface (ship) simulations in one facility, eliminating the need for critical propulsion testing abroad.
Concept note
DRDO has over 50 laboratories across India. Key naval/maritime labs: NSTL (Visakhapatnam), underwater weapons, torpedoes, sensors; NPOL (Kochi), sonar systems, underwater acoustics; NMRL (Ambernath), naval materials, AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) for submarines; RCI (Hyderabad), missiles guidance and control.
Cavitation is a hydrodynamic phenomenon where rapid pressure changes create vapour bubbles that collapse violently, causing noise and structural damage. For submarines, cavitation is the primary acoustic signature, a noisy submarine is detectable.
The LCT will enable India to design quieter propellers and hull shapes for next-gen submarines and ships, a critical Aatmanirbhar capability.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Defence R&D, DRDO labs, submarine technology; GS2, Aatmanirbhar Bharat in strategic programmes. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | LCT, NSTL, cavitation, submarine stealth, Varunastra torpedo, DRDO, Aatmanirbhar Bharat. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Placing NSTL in Kochi, NSTL is in Visakhapatnam; NPOL (sonar) is in Kochi. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2022 tested DRDO labs; know NSTL (Vizag, underwater weapons), NPOL (Kochi, sonar), DMRL (Hyderabad, metallurgy), GTRE (Bengaluru, gas turbines). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India currently sends submarine propeller designs abroad for cavitation testing, does the LCT fully eliminate this dependency, or are international test facilities still needed for validation? |
Question 10 of 22
Facts
The Amendment Act replaces self-perceived gender identity with a two-step process: medical certification by a medical board + recognition by the District Magistrate. This shifts from personal autonomy to state governance via biological criteria. Amnesty International criticised it as contradicting the NALSA v. Union of India (2014) Supreme Court ruling which recognised self-perceived gender identity.
Analysis
The fundamental tension is between the state’s desire for documentary verification and the individual’s right to self-identification, a constitutional question under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (dignity).
Concept note
NALSA v. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court recognised transgender persons as the “third gender” and affirmed their right to self-perceived gender identity under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan’s bench held that TG persons have the right to decide their self-identified gender without medical certification.
The original Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was already criticised for requiring a District Magistrate’s certificate instead of self-identification. The 2026 Amendment further tightens this by adding medical board certification as a prerequisite.
This aligns with the Government’s approach of documentary governance but diverges from the SC’s NALSA jurisprudence and the Yogyakarta Principles (international standards on sexual orientation and gender identity).
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, Fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21), SC jurisprudence, transgender rights; GS1, Social issues, gender identity. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | NALSA judgment, self-perceived identity, transgender rights, Article 14/21, Yogyakarta Principles, District Magistrate certification. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking NALSA judgment mandated medical certification, NALSA explicitly recognised self-perceived identity WITHOUT medical prerequisites. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2022 tested transgender rights; know NALSA (2014), Transgender Act 2019, and Articles 14+21 as the constitutional basis. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Does state certification of gender identity protect against fraudulent claims, or does it fundamentally violate the right to dignity recognised in NALSA? |
Question 11 of 22
Facts
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) is a statutory body established under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, headquartered in Chennai. It regulates access to India’s biological resources by foreign nationals and companies. State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) handle Indian companies/researchers, and ~2.8 lakh Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) operate at the panchayat level.
Analysis
The three-tier structure (NBA → SBB → BMC) mirrors the panchayati raj architecture, ensuring biodiversity governance reaches the grassroots.
Concept note
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 implements India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992). Three-tier structure: NBA (national, Chennai), regulates foreign access; 29 SBBs (state level), regulate Indian commercial access; ~2.8 lakh BMCs (panchayat level), document local biodiversity through People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs).
India has completed PBRs for over 2.6 lakh panchayats. The Act was amended in 2023 to simplify compliance for Indian researchers and AYUSH practitioners.
Key functions: approve access to bio-resources by foreigners; oppose biopiracy patents worldwide; ensure benefit-sharing with local communities. Famous biopiracy cases: turmeric (1995), neem (1994), basmati (1997), all challenged using Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) containing 3.4 lakh formulations.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Biodiversity governance, Nagoya Protocol, biopiracy; GS2, Statutory bodies, three-tier governance. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | NBA, SBB, BMC, PBR, Biological Diversity Act 2002, CBD, biopiracy, TKDL. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Placing NBA headquarters in Delhi, NBA is in Chennai; NBWL (National Board for Wildlife) is the Delhi-based wildlife body. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2020 tested NBA; know: NBA (Chennai), Wildlife Institute of India (Dehradun), NBWL (Delhi), three different bodies. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India’s PBR programme has documented biodiversity across 2.6 lakh panchayats, but how effectively is this data used to actually prevent biopiracy at international patent offices? |
Question 12 of 22
1 Article 3 empowers Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, and change names of existing states.
2 Any bill under Article 3 must be referred to the affected state legislature before being passed by Parliament.
3 Parliament is bound by the opinion of the affected state legislature on bills under Article 3.
4 The President must recommend the introduction of bills under Article 3.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Facts
Statements 1, 2, and 4 are correct.
Statement 3Incorrect
Parliament is NOT bound by the opinion of the state legislature. The reference is mandatory but the state’s opinion is advisory, Parliament may accept or reject it. This is a crucial federal limitation: states have no veto over their own reorganisation.
Analysis
This asymmetry is what makes India a “union of states” (Article 1) rather than a “federation of states”, the Centre can reorganise states without their consent.
Concept note
Article 3 provisions: (a) form new states by separation/merger; (b) increase/diminish area; (c) alter boundaries; (d) alter name. The Presidential recommendation (proviso) is mandatory for introducing the bill.
The state legislature is given a specified time to express views, if it does not respond within the time, Parliament can proceed regardless. Key historical examples: States Reorganisation Act 1956 (14 states, 6 UTs), creation of Telangana (2014), Jharkhand-Chhattisgarh-Uttarakhand (2000), J&K reorganisation (2019).
Note: J&K was reorganised under Article 370 (now abrogated) and Article 3. The First Schedule (listing states and UTs) is automatically updated when a state is reorganised, no separate amendment needed.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, State reorganisation, federalism, Centre-State relations, Article 3; GS1, History of linguistic states. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Article 3, state reorganisation, presidential recommendation, state legislature referral, advisory opinion, First Schedule. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking state legislature consent is required for reorganisation, it is consulted but not required to consent; Parliament’s power under Article 3 is supreme. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2021 tested Article 3; know the three steps: President’s recommendation → state legislature referral → Parliament’s decision (simple majority, not special majority). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** If Parliament can reorganise states without their consent, is Indian federalism truly federal, or does Article 3 make it quasi-federal as K.C. Wheare argued? |
Question 13 of 22
Facts
“Social Media Intelligence” is NOT part of SAMADHAN. The acronym stands for: S, Smart Leadership; A, Aggressive Strategy; M, Motivation and Training; A, Actionable Intelligence; D, Dashboard-Based KPIs; H, Harnessing Technology; A, Action Plan for Each Theatre; N, No Access to Financing.
Analysis
While technology is part of SAMADHAN (H), “social media intelligence” is not a separate pillar, a deliberate distractor using contemporary terminology to test precise knowledge.
Concept note
SAMADHAN was the MHA doctrine that guided India’s successful LWE elimination campaign. LWE-affected districts: 126 (2018) → 90 (April 2018) → 70 (2021) → 38 (April 2024) → near zero (March 2026).
Key operational elements: CoBRA (Commando Battalion for Resolute Action), CRPF’s anti-Naxal force (10 battalions); Road connectivity via PM Gram Sadak Yojana Phase III; Mobile towers via BharatNet; Developmental schemes (PM JANMAN, Aspirational Districts Programme). CPI(Maoist), formed 2004 by merger of PWG and MCC, is designated a terrorist organisation under UAPA.
LWE peaked in 2009-10 with 1,000+ annual deaths; by 2025, annual deaths fell below 30 (97% reduction).
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Internal security, LWE, counter-insurgency; GS2, CRPF, MHA, developmental approach to security. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | SAMADHAN, CoBRA, CRPF, LWE, CPI(Maoist), UAPA, Aspirational Districts, PM JANMAN. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Adding fabricated pillars to SAMADHAN, memorise the exact 8-letter acronym. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2023 tested LWE; know SAMADHAN acronym, CoBRA = CRPF unit, CPI(Maoist) formed 2004 = PWG + MCC merger. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India’s LWE elimination combined security operations with development, should this integrated model be exported to other countries facing Maoist-type insurgencies? |
Question 14 of 22
Facts
The ADC-S has a minimum strike range of 500 km from the release point. Each canister houses 6-8 autonomous/semi-autonomous munitions with a cruising speed of 350-400 km/h and minimum payload of 30 kg per drone. The system is deployable from C-17, C-130J, and C-295 transport aircraft under the Make-II category of DAP 2020.
Analysis
A 500 km range means the deploying aircraft stays well outside enemy air defence range while the swarm penetrates defences autonomously, a significant force multiplier.
Concept note
The ADC-S project is under Make-II category of DAP 2020, meaning the industry funds the development (unlike Make-I where MoD funds). Expression of Interest (EoI) deadline: April 30, 2026.
The swarm concept allows multiple small, cheap drones to overwhelm air defences that are designed to target individual large aircraft. Each drone carries a 30 kg payload, sufficient for precision-guided munitions or ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) sensors.
C-17 Globemaster III, C-130J Super Hercules, and C-295 are the IAF’s transport aircraft fleet. The ADC-S represents a shift from expensive, single-platform strikes to affordable, distributed, AI-enabled warfare.
Israel, USA, China, and Turkey are leaders in swarm drone technology, India is among the first to specify air-dropped canister deployment.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Emerging military technologies, drone warfare, DAP 2020; GS2, Defence acquisition policy. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | ADC-S, swarm drones, Make-II, DAP 2020, autonomous munitions, C-17, C-130J. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Confusing Make-I (MoD funded, 50%+ indigenous) with Make-II (industry funded), ADC-S is Make-II. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2023 tested drone regulations and military drones; know Make-I vs Make-II distinction and the shift toward swarm/AI-enabled warfare. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Autonomous drone swarms raise ethical questions about human-in-the-loop control, should India adopt the same autonomous weapons policies as the US/UK, or develop its own doctrine? |
Question 15 of 22
Match List I (Biopiracy Case) with List II (Biological Resource):
| List I (Case) | List II (Resource) |
|---|---|
| A. US Patent revoked 1997 | 1. Neem extract for pest control |
| B. European Patent revoked 2005 | 2. Turmeric wound-healing properties |
| C. US RiceTec case | 3. Basmati rice variety |
Facts
A → 2
(US turmeric patent was revoked in 1997 after CSIR’s challenge), B-1 (European neem patent for pest control was revoked in 2005 after India-EU joint challenge), C-3 (US RiceTec attempted to patent Basmati rice, partially revoked), D-4 (TKDL contains 3.4 lakh formulations from Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, and Yoga used to preemptively block biopiracy patents globally).
Analysis
These three cases are the defining examples of biopiracy that led India to establish the TKDL and strengthen the Biological Diversity Act.
Concept note
Turmeric patent: US Patent No. 5,401,504 granted to University of Mississippi Medical Centre for turmeric’s wound-healing properties. CSIR challenged it at USPTO, proving prior art from ancient Indian texts.
Revoked 1997. Neem patent: European Patent Office granted a patent to W.R. Grace Company and USDA for neem extract as a pesticide.
India’s Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (led by Vandana Shiva) and European Green Party challenged it. Revoked 2005 after 10-year legal battle.
Basmati: RiceTec Inc. (Texas) tried to patent “Basmati” rice lines in 1997.
India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) challenged it. Several claims withdrawn/narrowed.
TKDL (Traditional Knowledge Digital Library) was created by CSIR and AYUSH Ministry, available in 5 international patent office languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Japanese) to help patent examiners identify prior art.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Biopiracy, IPR, biodiversity; GS2, CSIR, TKDL, international IP disputes. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Biopiracy, turmeric, neem, basmati, TKDL, CSIR, Biological Diversity Act, NBA, prior art. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Getting turmeric (US, 1997) and neem (EU, 2005) patent offices wrong, turmeric was USPTO, neem was EPO. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2020 tested TKDL; know it has 3.4 lakh formulations in 5 languages and is accessible to international patent offices for prior art searches. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** TKDL is defensive (prevents bad patents) but not offensive (does not generate Indian patents from traditional knowledge), should India commercialise TK through its own patents? |
Question 16 of 22
1 The Nilgiri-class is the successor to the Shivalik-class (Project 17) frigates.
2 Seven ships are planned, four built by MDL Mumbai and three by GRSE Kolkata.
3 SAIL supplies the naval-grade DMR-249A steel used in the hull construction.
4 The frigates are designed by a foreign shipyard and assembled in India.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Facts
Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct.
Statement 4Incorrect
The Nilgiri-class frigates are designed INDIGENOUSLY by the Indian Navy’s Warship Design Bureau (WDB), not by a foreign shipyard. They are both designed and built in India.
Analysis
Indigenous design is a key differentiator, many countries build warships under foreign licence, but India designs its own through WDB.
Concept note
The Warship Design Bureau (WDB) is the Indian Navy’s in-house design organisation responsible for designing all major warships. WDB designed the INS Vikrant (aircraft carrier), Nilgiri-class (frigates), Visakhapatnam-class (destroyers), and Kamorta-class (corvettes).
This is distinct from the Scorpene-class (Kalvari) submarines which are built under French (Naval Group) licence. Project 17A cost: Rs 45,000+ crore for 7 ships.
SAIL’s DMR-249A steel is a high-strength, low-alloy steel specifically developed for naval applications, its indigenous production is strategically critical since warship-grade steel is subject to export controls. MDL (Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd, Mumbai) is a public sector shipyard under the Ministry of Defence; GRSE (Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata) is also under MoD.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Defence indigenisation, naval shipbuilding, SAIL, Aatmanirbhar Bharat; GS2, Defence PSUs. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | WDB, Project 17A, MDL, GRSE, DMR-249A steel, SAIL, indigenous warship design, Aatmanirbhar Bharat. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking Indian warships are designed abroad, Project 17A, 15B, and the INS Vikrant are all designed by the Warship Design Bureau (Navy’s in-house design unit). |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC tests indigenous defence production; know WDB (designs), MDL/GRSE (builds), SAIL (steel), the complete indigenisation chain. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India designs and builds warships but still imports key subsystems (weapons, sensors, propulsion), when will India achieve true end-to-end naval self-reliance? |
Question 17 of 22
Facts
Even with 74% ownership in a private bank, a foreign investor’s voting rights are capped at 26% under RBI regulations. This is a deliberate asymmetry, allowing capital inflow (74%) while preventing governance control by foreign entities. Emirates NBD will hold up to 74% of RBL Bank but can only vote with 26% of shares.
Analysis
This regulatory design balances India’s need for foreign capital in banking with sovereignty concerns about who controls deposit-taking institutions.
Concept note
The voting rights cap in Indian banking is specified under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and RBI master directions on bank ownership. The 26% cap was introduced when FDI limits were raised to 74% in 2021, explicitly to prevent foreign entities from controlling Indian banks’ governance.
This is distinct from insurance sector FDI (also 74% since 2021) where voting rights are not capped at 26%, an inconsistency that reflects different regulatory philosophies at RBI vs IRDAI. Public sector banks have 20% FDI limit with similar voting restrictions.
The “fit and proper” test under RBI guidelines assesses financial soundness, integrity, and governance track record of any entity acquiring 5%+ of a bank’s shares.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Banking regulation, FDI in financial services; GS2, RBI regulatory framework. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Voting rights cap, 26%, FDI 74%, Banking Regulation Act, RBI, private banks, foreign bank subsidiary. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Assuming 74% FDI = 74% voting rights, the voting rights cap at 26% is a separate, deliberate limitation. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2022 tested FDI in banking; remember: 74% ownership cap + 26% voting rights cap, two separate numbers. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Is the 26% voting rights cap an effective safeguard, or does it deter quality foreign investors who want meaningful governance participation? |
Question 18 of 22
1 The Act establishes a three-tier structure: NBA (national), SBBs (state), and BMCs (panchayat level).
2 The Act was amended in 2023 to simplify compliance for AYUSH practitioners.
3 People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) document traditional knowledge at the village level.
4 The NBA is headquartered in New Delhi.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Facts
Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct.
Statement 4Incorrect
The NBA is headquartered in Chennai, not New Delhi. The three-tier structure (NBA → SBBs → BMCs), the 2023 amendment for AYUSH compliance, and PBRs at village level are all correct.
Analysis
The Chennai-vs-Delhi distinction for statutory bodies is a classic UPSC Prelims trap, many students default to Delhi as the headquarters.
Concept note
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 implements India’s CBD obligations. NBA (Chennai): regulates access by foreign nationals/companies; approves transfer of research results; opposes biopiracy patents. 29 SBBs: regulate access by Indian commercial entities. ~2.8 lakh BMCs: document local biodiversity through PBRs.
The 2023 Amendment simplified compliance for Indian researchers and codified AYUSH practitioners’ access to biological resources, previously AYUSH companies faced the same compliance burden as foreign entities. India has completed PBRs for over 2.6 lakh panchayats, the world’s largest grassroots biodiversity documentation effort.
TKDL (Traditional Knowledge Digital Library) is a separate initiative by CSIR/AYUSH Ministry, not part of the BD Act but complementary.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, Biodiversity governance, BD Act 2002, NBA; GS2, Three-tier statutory governance. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Biological Diversity Act 2002, NBA Chennai, SBB, BMC, PBR, 2023 Amendment, AYUSH, TKDL. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Placing NBA in Delhi, NBA HQ is Chennai; this error appears frequently in mock tests and should be memorised. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2020 tested NBA; know: NBA (Chennai) ≠ NBWL (Delhi) ≠ WII (Dehradun), three different bodies. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India has documented biodiversity across 2.6 lakh panchayats, but most PBRs sit unused; how can this data be activated for conservation, benefit-sharing, and climate adaptation? |
Question 19 of 22
Southern states fear losing Lok Sabha seats in delimitation because they have lower population growth rates than northern states.
The 84th Amendment (2002) froze seat allocation at 1971 Census levels to ensure states that controlled population were not penalised.
Select the correct answer:
Facts
Both A and R are true and R correctly explains A. Southern states (TFR below replacement: Kerala 1.8, TN 1.8, AP 1.6) have lower population than what proportional seat allocation would give to northern states (Bihar TFR 3.0, UP 2.4). The 84th Amendment explicitly froze seats at 1971 population levels to prevent this penalisation. Now that the freeze expires, southern states fear fresh population-based allocation would reduce their seats.
R is the precise mechanism that protected southern states and its expiry is what creates A’s fear.
Analysis
A complete A-R pair where R is the causal mechanism behind A, the freeze protected, its expiry threatens.
Concept note
The demographic divergence between northern and southern India is stark: southern states achieved replacement-level TFR by 2000-2010 through investments in women’s education, healthcare, and family planning. Northern states caught up much later.
If Lok Sabha seats were reallocated strictly by current population: UP would jump from 80 to ~120+ seats; Bihar from 40 to ~70+; while Kerala would drop from 20 to ~14; TN from 39 to ~30. PM Modi’s assurance, that no southern state will lose seats, means the total seats must expand (543→816) to accommodate the north’s population growth without reducing the south’s share.
This is similar to the principle behind the US Senate (equal representation) vs House (population-based), but India’s Lok Sabha is purely population-based.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, Delimitation, federalism, population policy; GS1, Demographic transition, TFR, north-south divergence. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Delimitation, 84th Amendment, TFR, demographic transition, southern states, federalism, proportional representation. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Thinking southern states will definitely lose seats, PM Modi assured they will not; the solution is expanding total seats rather than redistributing existing ones. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC tests demographic transition; know Kerala and TN achieved replacement TFR by early 2000s, while Bihar still exceeds it in 2021. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Is expanding Lok Sabha to 816 seats the right solution, or should India adopt a mixed system with some seats based on population and others on equal state representation? |
Question 20 of 22
Facts
CM Jagan Mohan Reddy (YSRCP) proposed three capitals in 2019: Amaravati (legislative), Visakhapatnam (executive), and Kurnool (judicial). This was struck down by the AP High Court. The TDP under Chandrababu Naidu consistently supported Amaravati as the sole capital.
Hyderabad was the joint capital for a fixed 10-year period (2014-2024).
Analysis
The three-capital model was unique in Indian governance, no other state has attempted splitting capitals functionally.
Concept note
The three-capital controversy: CM Jagan proposed decentralising governance to ensure regional balance across AP’s three regions, Coastal Andhra (Amaravati for legislature), Uttarandhra/North Coastal (Visakhapatnam for executive), and Rayalaseema (Kurnool for high court). The AP High Court struck it down, holding that changing the capital without Central approval (under the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014) was unconstitutional.
After TDP returned to power in 2024 (as part of NDA), Naidu pushed for parliamentary legislation to permanently designate Amaravati. The 2026 amendment to Section 5 settles the matter legislatively.
Amaravati is on the Krishna River between Krishna and Guntur districts, historically significant as the Satavahana capital.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, State capitals, Centre-State relations, AP Reorganisation; GS1, Regional aspirations, Rayalaseema-Coastal-Uttarandhra dynamics. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Three capitals, Amaravati, YSRCP, TDP, AP Reorganisation Act Section 5, Article 3, Krishna River. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Attributing the three-capital proposal to TDP, it was YSRCP under CM Jagan; TDP supports single Amaravati capital. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC tests state-level polity; know YSRCP = 3 capitals (struck down), TDP = Amaravati only, AP Reorganisation Act Section 5 (amended 2026). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Should India allow states to have multiple capitals to address regional imbalances, or does a single capital provide administrative efficiency? |
Question 21 of 22
Match List I (DRDO Laboratory) with List II (Location and Specialisation):
| List I (Lab) | List II (Location and Specialisation) |
|---|---|
| A. NSTL | 1. Kochi; sonar systems and underwater acoustics |
| B. NPOL | 2. Visakhapatnam; underwater weapons and torpedo development |
| C. GTRE | 3. Bengaluru; gas turbine and jet engine development |
| D. DMRL | 4. Hyderabad; defence metallurgy and special alloys |
Facts
A → 2
(NSTL is in Visakhapatnam, specialising in underwater weapons and torpedoes including Varunastra), B-1 (NPOL, Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory, is in Kochi, specialising in sonar and underwater acoustics), C-3 (GTRE is in Bengaluru, developing the Kaveri jet engine), D-4 (DMRL is in Hyderabad, specialising in defence metallurgy and special alloys).
Analysis
DRDO lab locations are frequently tested, knowing which lab is where prevents common geographic confusion.
Concept note
DRDO has 50+ laboratories across India. Key naval/defence labs: NSTL (Visakhapatnam), developed Varunastra heavyweight torpedo, lightweight torpedo TAL, underwater mines; NPOL (Kochi), developed HUMSA (Hull Mounted Sonar Array), USHUS (submarine sonar), Mihir sonar; GTRE (Bengaluru), developing Kaveri turbofan engine for Tejas MkII; DMRL (Hyderabad), develops maraging steel for missile casings, titanium alloys for aircraft, nickel-based superalloys for jet engines; RCI (Hyderabad), missile guidance; DRDL (Hyderabad), missile design; ASL (Hyderabad), missile assembly.
Hyderabad has the largest cluster of DRDO labs in India. Bengaluru has HAL, GTRE, ADE (Aeronautical Development Establishment), CABS (Centre for Airborne Systems).
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3, DRDO, defence R&D, indigenous technology; GS2 — Defence institutional architecture. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | NSTL, NPOL, GTRE, DMRL, DRDO labs, Varunastra, Kaveri engine, underwater weapons. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Swapping NSTL (Vizag) and NPOL (Kochi), both are naval labs but in different cities with different specialisations. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2022 tested DRDO labs; memorise: NSTL (Vizag, torpedoes), NPOL (Kochi, sonar), GTRE (Bengaluru, engines), RCI (Hyderabad, missiles). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** India’s DRDO has 50+ labs but faces criticism for delayed timelines, would restructuring DRDO into fewer, more focused centres of excellence improve outcomes? |
Question 22 of 22
1 Japan provides Official Development Assistance (ODA) to India, India is the largest recipient of Japanese ODA globally.
2 The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) is funded primarily by Japan through JICA.
3 The Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train uses French TGV technology.
4 The India-Japan Act East Forum focuses on developing India’s Northeast.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Facts
Statements 1, 2, and 4 are correct.
Statement 3Incorrect
The Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train uses Japanese Shinkansen technology (E5 series), NOT French TGV technology. Japan’s JICA provides the loan for the bullet train project.
Analysis
The TGV vs Shinkansen distinction is a classic UPSC distractor, both are high-speed rail systems, but India chose Japanese technology specifically.
Concept note
Japan-India relations: India has been the largest recipient of Japanese ODA since 2003, receiving billions annually through JICA soft loans. DMIC (Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor) is a ~$100 billion mega-infrastructure project connecting Delhi to Mumbai through a dedicated freight corridor, substantially funded by JICA.
The Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail (Bullet Train) project uses E5 Shinkansen technology (same as Japan’s Tohoku Shinkansen). Construction began in 2020; target completion is 2028.
Route: ~508 km, 12 stations. Japan’s Act East Forum (2017) specifically targets India’s Northeast, JICA has funded projects in Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland for road connectivity, urban development, and livelihood programmes.
🎯 Concept Kit tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2, India-Japan bilateral, Quad, Act East Policy; GS3, Infrastructure, DMIC, bullet train, ODA. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | JICA, DMIC, Shinkansen, Act East Forum, ODA, Special Strategic Partnership, Quad. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | Confusing Shinkansen (Japan) with TGV (France), India’s bullet train is Japanese technology. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | UPSC 2021 tested India-Japan relations; know DMIC (Japan), bullet train (Japan/Shinkansen/E5), Act East Forum (NE India), and that India = largest Japanese ODA recipient. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** Japan’s ODA to India carries strategic intent, should India diversify infrastructure funding beyond Japanese ODA to reduce over-dependence on a single bilateral partner? |
Performance
Question-wise Result