UPSC Prelims Practice
Current Affairs Quiz 4 August 2026
Daily Practice
Test Your Knowledge
12 questions based on today’s current affairs & editorials
12 MCQs
Explanations
Statistics
Timed
Choose number of questions
Question 1 of 12
Parliament raised the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court to 38 judges in 2026. What is the constitutional basis on which this can be done?
FACT: Article 124(1) provides that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, not more than seven other judges. The number seven is therefore a constitutional floor expressly subject to enlargement by ordinary law, which is why the strength is fixed by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 and raised by amending it.
ANALYSIS: Note the deliberate contrast with Article 216, under which High Court strength is determined by the President rather than by statute. Candidates frequently invert the two.
ANALYSIS: Note the deliberate contrast with Article 216, under which High Court strength is determined by the President rather than by statute. Candidates frequently invert the two.
📝 Concept Note
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 amends Section 2 of the 1956 Act, raising judges other than the CJI from 33 to 37, and the total including the CJI from 34 to 38, retrospectively from 16 May 2026. The retrospectivity is to the date of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated under Article 123, which the Bill replaces, so the strength of the apex court was first altered by an executive instrument and ratified afterwards.
It was moved by Arjun Ram Meghwal and passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 August 2026 in under ten minutes, without debate. The government cited 75,410 fresh matters instituted last year against disposal of over 65,000.
Prior revisions came in 1956, 1960, 1977, 1986, 2009 and 2019.
It was moved by Arjun Ram Meghwal and passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 August 2026 in under ten minutes, without debate. The government cited 75,410 fresh matters instituted last year against disposal of over 65,000.
Prior revisions came in 1956, 1960, 1977, 1986, 2009 and 2019.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 judiciary, separation of powers, parliamentary scrutiny. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | sanctioned strength, institution-disposal gap, Constitution Bench, appointment throughput. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | believing that judge strength requires a constitutional amendment; it requires only ordinary legislation. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | learn Article 124(1) and Article 216 as a pair, since the statutory-versus-executive distinction between Supreme Court and High Court strength is the testable contrast. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** if the sanctioned strength is raised while vacancies against the old strength persist, what has actually changed? |
Question 2 of 12
Under the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026, a registration reported more than two years after the event requires an order from which authority?
FACT: The amendment creates a two-tier regime for delayed registration. A delay of one to two years continues to require an order of a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or authorised Executive Magistrate after verification, while a delay beyond two years now requires an order of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
ANALYSIS: The operative shift is from executive to judicial authority for very late registrations, which introduces an evidentiary process and an appealable written order, at the cost of requiring a court appearance from applicants who are disproportionately poor, migrant or from remote areas.
ANALYSIS: The operative shift is from executive to judicial authority for very late registrations, which introduces an evidentiary process and an appealable written order, at the cost of requiring a court appearance from applicants who are disproportionately poor, migrant or from remote areas.
📝 Concept Note
The Bill amends the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and was passed by the Lok Sabha on 31 July 2026 and the Rajya Sabha on 4 August 2026, moved by Nityanand Rai. Registration of births and deaths falls under Entry 30 of the Concurrent List, vital statistics, and is administered by State Governments with the Registrar General of India coordinating the Civil Registration System under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The 2023 amendment to the same Act had digitised registration and made the birth certificate a single document for school admission, driving licence, voter registration, marriage registration and government appointment.
The 2023 amendment to the same Act had digitised registration and made the birth certificate a single document for school admission, driving licence, voter registration, marriage registration and government appointment.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 government policies and their implementation, vulnerable sections, federalism. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | civil registration, documentary exclusion, gatekeeping, anti-fraud verification. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | placing registration of births and deaths in the Union List; it is Concurrent List Entry 30. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | the 2023 amendment raised the value of a birth certificate and the 2026 amendment raises the barrier to obtaining one late; read the two together. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** how would you prevent fraudulent late registration without excluding genuine applicants who have no contemporaneous record? |
Question 3 of 12
The Supreme Court extended Section 498A IPC to live-in relationships in the nature of marriage. What must a woman establish to invoke it?
FACT: The Court held that a formally solemnised marriage is not a precondition, but confined the extension by requiring the woman to establish two things: that the relationship was akin to marriage rather than mere cohabitation, and that both parties intended to marry. ANALYSIS: The constitutional reasoning is that the distinction between a married woman and a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage bears no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic cruelty, and therefore fails the Article 14 test.
The Court added that penal statutes may be read purposively where the object is reformative and socially beneficial.
The Court added that penal statutes may be read purposively where the object is reformative and socially beneficial.
📝 Concept Note
The judgment is Dr. Lokesh B.H. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, neutral citation 2026 INSC 784, authored by Justice Sanjay Karol sitting with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, pronounced on 3 August 2026. Section 498A IPC corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with cruelty defined in Section 86.
The category of a relationship in the nature of marriage already existed in Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, but only for civil remedies; the tests for it come from D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010). Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) had earlier recorded concern about misuse of Section 498A and laid down safeguards against automatic arrest.
The category of a relationship in the nature of marriage already existed in Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, but only for civil remedies; the tests for it come from D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010). Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) had earlier recorded concern about misuse of Section 498A and laid down safeguards against automatic arrest.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 Fundamental Rights and judicial interpretation; GS1 Indian society and the status of women. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | rational nexus, purposive construction, strict construction of penal statutes, substantive equality. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming the PWDVA 2005 already provided a criminal remedy for live-in partners; it provided civil and protective remedies only. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | pair D. Velusamy (2010) for the tests with Arnesh Kumar (2014) for the misuse safeguards; both are likely to appear alongside this judgment. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** should courts extend criminal liability by analogy where the legislature has used a specific word such as husband? |
Question 4 of 12
The Supreme Court located the right to walk on safe, encroachment-free footpaths in Article 19(1)(d) read with Article 21, and named municipal bodies as duty-bearers. Which constitutional provisions already assign this function to them?
FACT: Article 243W, inserted by the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, permits State legislatures to endow municipalities with the powers and authority to function as institutions of self-government and to perform the functions listed in the Twelfth Schedule, which include urban planning including town planning, roads and bridges, regulation of land use and public amenities. ANALYSIS: The Court is therefore not creating a new municipal obligation but attaching a fundamental right to an existing constitutional function, which converts a policy failure into a rights violation carrying remedies including compensation.
📝 Concept Note
The right was declared on 19 June 2026 in Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan, by a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, which located it in Article 19(1)(d) read with Article 21 rather than in Article 21 alone, and converted the matter into a suo motu proceeding titled Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath. The order of 3 August 2026, by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, issued directions in that proceeding rather than creating the right.
Justice Narasimha observed that demarcation needs no big investment or construction and could be done with a rope, provided the space is kept unencroached. The Article 21 expansion line runs through Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) on the right to live with dignity, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) on livelihood, which itself concerned pavement dwellers, and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) on a pollution-free environment.
The competing claim on the same footpath is the vendor livelihood protected by the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
Justice Narasimha observed that demarcation needs no big investment or construction and could be done with a rope, provided the space is kept unencroached. The Article 21 expansion line runs through Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) on the right to live with dignity, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) on livelihood, which itself concerned pavement dwellers, and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) on a pollution-free environment.
The competing claim on the same footpath is the vendor livelihood protected by the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 Fundamental Rights, judicial activism, urban local government and devolution; GS3 infrastructure and urbanisation. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | positive rights, municipal fiscal capacity, wildland of competing claims, enforcement asymmetry. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | attributing the Twelfth Schedule to the 73rd Amendment; the 73rd concerns panchayats and the Eleventh Schedule, the 74th concerns municipalities and the Twelfth. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | Olga Tellis is the case to cite for the tension, since it protected pavement dwellers on the very space now claimed for pedestrians. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** if a municipality lacks the finances to comply with a declared fundamental right, what should a court do next? |
Question 5 of 12
Which of the following is true of the clouded leopard, the subject of India’s new Conservation Action Plan?
FACT: Neofelis nebulosa is assessed as Vulnerable by the IUCN, listed in CITES Appendix I and placed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and it is the state animal of Meghalaya. It is not a member of the genus Panthera, occupying an intermediate position between the big and small cats, and its Indian range is confined to the Northeast and adjoining areas.
ANALYSIS: The Sunda clouded leopard, Neofelis diardi, is a separate species found in Borneo and Sumatra, not a subspecies and not present in India, which is the trap embedded in the fourth option.
ANALYSIS: The Sunda clouded leopard, Neofelis diardi, is a separate species found in Borneo and Sumatra, not a subspecies and not present in India, which is the trap embedded in the fourth option.
📝 Concept Note
The Clouded Leopard Conservation Action Plan was publicised on International Clouded Leopard Day, 4 August 2026, having been released at the 91st meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife at Coimbatore in July 2026, under the Government of India, GEF and UNDP framework. It identifies 14 priority conservation landscapes across Northeast India and front-loads a standardised monitoring protocol using camera traps, occupancy surveys, genetics and environmental DNA. eDNA detects genetic material shed into soil, water or air, establishing presence without a sighting, which matters for a nocturnal and arboreal species that camera traps at ground level may miss.
Meghalaya, which holds the clouded leopard as its state animal, launched Mission Clouded Leopard on the same day.
Meghalaya, which holds the clouded leopard as its state animal, launched Mission Clouded Leopard on the same day.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 biodiversity, conservation, species action plans. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | cryptic species, occupancy versus density, corridor connectivity, charismatic megafauna bias. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | treating the clouded leopard as a Panthera big cat, or confusing Neofelis nebulosa with Neofelis diardi. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | Northeast India lies at the junction of the Indo-Burma and Eastern Himalaya biodiversity hotspots, and much of its forest is under community or clan ownership rather than forest-department control. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** is a plan that begins with a monitoring protocol rather than a population target a sign of rigour or of unpreparedness? |
Question 6 of 12
Glaw Lake became India’s 101st Ramsar site. What does Ramsar designation legally require of the host country?
FACT: A Contracting Party undertakes to designate wetlands for the List, to promote their conservation and wise use, to formulate and implement planning for listed sites, and to inform the Secretariat where ecological character has changed or is likely to change. The Convention carries no enforcement mechanism and confers no domestic legal protection of its own.
ANALYSIS: Protection in India therefore flows from the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and from any independent protected-area status. Glaw Lake is relatively well placed because it already lies within Kamlang Tiger Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary and so carries Wildlife (Protection) Act protection regardless of the listing.
ANALYSIS: Protection in India therefore flows from the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and from any independent protected-area status. Glaw Lake is relatively well placed because it already lies within Kamlang Tiger Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary and so carries Wildlife (Protection) Act protection regardless of the listing.
📝 Concept Note
Glaw Lake lies in Lohit district, Arunachal Pradesh, at about 1,168 metres and covering about 8 sq km, and is a headwater source of the Kamlang river. It supports over 150 tree species and 49 wild orchid species; the landscape holds four big cat species, tiger, leopard, clouded leopard and snow leopard, and the site holds the Critically Endangered white-bellied heron.
It is Arunachal Pradesh’s first Ramsar site, announced by Bhupender Yadav on 3 August 2026. The Convention was adopted in 1971 at Ramsar, Iran, entered into force in 1975, and India acceded in 1982 with Chilika and Keoladeo as its first sites.
The Montreux Record lists sites facing change in ecological character, and India’s two entries are Keoladeo National Park and Loktak Lake. India has grown from 26 sites in 2014 to 101 in 2026.
It is Arunachal Pradesh’s first Ramsar site, announced by Bhupender Yadav on 3 August 2026. The Convention was adopted in 1971 at Ramsar, Iran, entered into force in 1975, and India acceded in 1982 with Chilika and Keoladeo as its first sites.
The Montreux Record lists sites facing change in ecological character, and India’s two entries are Keoladeo National Park and Loktak Lake. India has grown from 26 sites in 2014 to 101 in 2026.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 conservation and biodiversity; GS1 physical geography and drainage. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | wise use, ecological character, Montreux Record, input versus outcome measures. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming Ramsar listing itself restricts land use; it does not. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | wise use expressly contemplates human use within sustainable development and is not the same as preservation. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** what indicator would tell you whether a country’s growing Ramsar count reflects conservation or only diplomacy? |
Question 7 of 12
The MSME Development (Amendment) Bill, 2026 introduced a new interim remedy for suppliers. What is it?
FACT: The Bill empowers a court to order payment of at least 50 per cent of an awarded amount to the MSME supplier where an application to set the award aside has been pending for more than six months. ANALYSIS: The design targets the timing of the remedy rather than the existence of the right.
A supplier already had a statutory right to payment and a route to an arbitral award, but a buyer could postpone realisation for years through a set-aside application, and for a micro enterprise a win that yields no cash is functionally a loss because the injury is to working capital.
A supplier already had a statutory right to payment and a route to an arbitral award, but a buyer could postpone realisation for years through a set-aside application, and for a micro enterprise a win that yields no cash is functionally a loss because the injury is to working capital.
📝 Concept Note
The Bill amends the MSMED Act, 2006 and was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 3 August 2026, moved by Jitan Ram Manjhi. Section 15 of the parent Act requires payment by the agreed date or within 45 days, whichever is earlier, and Section 16 provides compound interest at three times the RBI bank rate.
Section 18 refers a dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for conciliation and then arbitration, Section 19 requires the buyer to pre-deposit 75 per cent of the award before a set-aside application is entertained, and Sections 20 and 21 provide for the establishment of the Councils by State Governments and for their composition. The Bill also sets 90 days each for mediated settlement and arbitral award, makes TReDS onboarding mandatory for Central Public Sector Enterprises, allows voluntary digital registration, and decriminalises compliance offences in favour of graded penalties.
Section 18 refers a dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for conciliation and then arbitration, Section 19 requires the buyer to pre-deposit 75 per cent of the award before a set-aside application is entertained, and Sections 20 and 21 provide for the establishment of the Councils by State Governments and for their composition. The Bill also sets 90 days each for mediated settlement and arbitral award, makes TReDS onboarding mandatory for Central Public Sector Enterprises, allows voluntary digital registration, and decriminalises compliance offences in favour of graded penalties.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 Indian economy, MSMEs, industrial and credit policy. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | working capital, receivables discounting, buyer-supplier asymmetry, enforcement versus entitlement. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | stating the payment period as 45 days without the qualifier; it is the agreed date or 45 days, whichever is earlier. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | TReDS works only when the buyer is onboarded and accepts the invoice, which is why mandatory CPSE participation is the operative reform. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** a small supplier who must sue its main customer to be paid rarely does so; what mechanism would work without requiring the supplier to initiate conflict? |
Question 8 of 12
The Indian Statistical Institute, whose governance is the subject of a contested 2026 Bill, was founded by whom and holds what status?
FACT: The Indian Statistical Institute was founded in 1931 by Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis at Kolkata and was declared an Institution of National Importance by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959. It functions under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
ANALYSIS: The autonomy objection carries additional weight here because ISI supplies the technical personnel and methodology of India’s official statistical system, and an institution that measures the government’s performance derives its credibility specifically from independence of the executive it measures.
ANALYSIS: The autonomy objection carries additional weight here because ISI supplies the technical personnel and methodology of India’s official statistical system, and an institution that measures the government’s performance derives its credibility specifically from independence of the executive it measures.
📝 Concept Note
The Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 3 August 2026. Faculty, staff and Opposition members object that it replaces a 33-member Council containing 10 elected members with a 12-member wholly nominated Board of Governors, in which the nominated chairperson selects three joint-secretary-level officials, four external experts and four internal representatives including the Director, and sought referral to a Departmentally Related Parliamentary Standing Committee.
The government cites financial stability and parity with other Institutions of National Importance. The nearest precedent is the IIM (Amendment) Act, 2023, which made the President the Visitor of the IIMs with powers over director appointment and removal and over audit and inspection, six years after the IIM Act, 2017 had been presented as autonomy-granting.
Mahalanobis devised the Mahalanobis distance, pioneered large-scale sample surveys in India, and authored the model behind the Second Five Year Plan; National Statistics Day falls on 29 June, his birth anniversary.
The government cites financial stability and parity with other Institutions of National Importance. The nearest precedent is the IIM (Amendment) Act, 2023, which made the President the Visitor of the IIMs with powers over director appointment and removal and over audit and inspection, six years after the IIM Act, 2017 had been presented as autonomy-granting.
Mahalanobis devised the Mahalanobis distance, pioneered large-scale sample surveys in India, and authored the model behind the Second Five Year Plan; National Statistics Day falls on 29 June, his birth anniversary.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 institutions, autonomy versus accountability, parliamentary committees; GS3 statistics and planning. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | institutional autonomy, statistical credibility, oversight of finances versus control of appointments. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing National Statistics Day, 29 June, with World Statistics Day; and attributing the Second Five Year Plan model to the Planning Commission generally rather than to Mahalanobis. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | Departmentally Related Standing Committees were introduced in 1993, number 24, and have 31 members each, 21 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, with advisory recommendations. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** does public funding of an institution justify government control over who governs it, or only over how its money is spent? |
Question 9 of 12
C-DAC and the Geological Survey of India signed an Umbrella MoU on 4 August 2026. Which ministries do the two bodies belong to?
FACT: The Centre for Development of Advanced Computing functions under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and the Geological Survey of India functions under the Ministry of Mines. ANALYSIS: The pairing matters because the MoU applies computing capability held in one ministry to geological data held in another, which is the kind of cross-ministerial arrangement the National Critical Mineral Mission depends on.
📝 Concept Note
C-DAC was established in 1988, is headquartered at Pune, and builds the PARAM supercomputer series and systems under the National Supercomputing Mission. The Geological Survey of India was founded in 1851 and is headquartered at Kolkata.
The MoU was signed by E. Magesh, Director General of C-DAC, and Pradeep Singh, Additional Director General of GSI, in the presence of MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan. Its scope covers AI and HPC processing of geophysical datasets, high-resolution 3D subsurface mapping, a domain-specific Large Language Model built from unstructured geological records, slope-scale landslide monitoring using Synthetic Aperture Radar, and Glacial Lake Outburst Flood studies.
Computational targeting improves the odds of discovery but does not create the midstream refining capacity that is the actual constraint.
The MoU was signed by E. Magesh, Director General of C-DAC, and Pradeep Singh, Additional Director General of GSI, in the presence of MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan. Its scope covers AI and HPC processing of geophysical datasets, high-resolution 3D subsurface mapping, a domain-specific Large Language Model built from unstructured geological records, slope-scale landslide monitoring using Synthetic Aperture Radar, and Glacial Lake Outburst Flood studies.
Computational targeting improves the odds of discovery but does not create the midstream refining capacity that is the actual constraint.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 science and technology, mineral resources, disaster management. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | reserve-to-refining gap, midstream capacity, predictive targeting, SAR interferometry. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | placing GSI under the Ministry of Earth Sciences; it is under the Ministry of Mines. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | 1851 for GSI and 1988 for C-DAC are both standard foundation-year questions. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** if better exploration only locates more deposits India cannot process, what should be sequenced first? |
Question 10 of 12
The e-Pratyaropan portal was launched by NOTTO. What is the correct institutional structure and governing statute for organ transplantation in India?
FACT: The National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation functions under the Directorate General of Health Services in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, with Regional and State Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisations forming the tiers below it, and the governing statute is the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, amended in 2011 with Rules of 2014. ANALYSIS: The portal creates a single national waiting list with automatic hospital, State, regional and national tiers, Aadhaar-based recipient verification and a super urgent category, which improves the transparency of allocation without addressing the underlying supply constraint.
📝 Concept Note
e-Pratyaropan and a companion NOTTO mobile application were launched on the 16th Indian Organ Donation Day, observed on 3 August 2026. The platform records every stage of allocation and organ movement, replacing coordination previously conducted by telephone and message between transplant coordinators.
India’s deceased-donation rate per million population is among the lowest internationally, and the binding constraints are brain-death certification by hospitals and family consent at the point of loss, neither of which an allocation platform addresses. A complete answer distinguishes allocation reform from donation reform.
India’s deceased-donation rate per million population is among the lowest internationally, and the binding constraints are brain-death certification by hospitals and family consent at the point of loss, neither of which an allocation platform addresses. A complete answer distinguishes allocation reform from donation reform.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 health governance, digital public infrastructure, ethics of organ donation; GS4 consent and dignity. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | deceased donation rate, brain-death certification, allocation versus supply, opt-in versus opt-out. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | treating a transparency platform as a solution to a supply shortage. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | fix the NOTTO-ROTTO-SOTTO hierarchy and THOTA 1994 as a set; both are directly testable. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** would an opt-out presumed-consent regime be appropriate for India, and what would have to be true for it to work? |
Question 11 of 12
Yuva Sangam Phase VII opened for registration on 4 August 2026. Under which programme does it run, and what are its five themes?
FACT: Yuva Sangam runs under Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat and is built on five themes known as the 5 Ps: Paryatan meaning tourism, Parampara meaning tradition, Pragati meaning development, Paraspar Sampark meaning people-to-people connect, and Prodyogiki meaning technology. ANALYSIS: The programme operationalises cultural exchange between paired states through short exposure tours for young people, which places it in the national-integration rather than the skilling category of youth programmes.
📝 Concept Note
Phase VII registrations opened on 4 August 2026 with a closing date of 18 August 2026, open to those aged 18 to 30, conducted through 20 nodal higher education institutions, with tours of five to seven days. Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat was announced in 2015 on the birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and pairs states and union territories for reciprocal engagement across language, literature, cuisine, festivals, cultural events and tourism.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS1 national integration, Indian culture and diversity; GS2 youth-focused government schemes. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | cultural exchange, paired states, people-to-people connect, demographic dividend. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing Yuva Sangam with skilling programmes such as PMKVY; its objective is integration, not employability. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | the 5 Ps are directly examinable in their Hindi forms; learn all five with their English meanings. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** can short exposure tours produce durable inter-regional understanding, and how would you measure whether they had? |
Question 12 of 12
Odisha has sought a UNESCO tag for the Puri Rath Yatra. Under which instrument, and how does it differ from World Heritage inscription?
FACT: Living practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills are inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity under the 2003 Convention, while physical sites are inscribed on the World Heritage List under the 1972 Convention. ANALYSIS: The two lists are distinct in subject matter, in nominating process and in the obligations they create, and conflating them is one of the more common errors in culture questions.
📝 Concept Note
Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi wrote to Union Culture and Tourism Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat on 1 August 2026 seeking central backing, on a proposal submitted by the Shree Jagannatha Temple Administration; the request was reported on 3 and 4 August. India ratified the 2003 Convention in 2005.
Odisha’s existing intangible-heritage inscription is Chhau dance, shared with Jharkhand and West Bengal and inscribed in 2010. India’s other inscriptions include Vedic chanting, Kutiyattam, Ramlila, Novruz, Kumbh Mela, Yoga, Durga Puja in Kolkata and Garba of Gujarat.
The Sangeet Natak Akademi is the nodal agency for intangible cultural heritage in India.
Odisha’s existing intangible-heritage inscription is Chhau dance, shared with Jharkhand and West Bengal and inscribed in 2010. India’s other inscriptions include Vedic chanting, Kutiyattam, Ramlila, Novruz, Kumbh Mela, Yoga, Durga Puja in Kolkata and Garba of Gujarat.
The Sangeet Natak Akademi is the nodal agency for intangible cultural heritage in India.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS1 Indian culture, art forms, festivals and architecture. |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | intangible heritage, safeguarding, living tradition, community consent in nomination. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | describing an ICH inscription as World Heritage status; they arise under different conventions. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | Chhau is shared across three states, which makes it a favourite question; the Sangeet Natak Akademi, not the ASI, is the nodal body for ICH. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** does international inscription help safeguard a living tradition, or does it risk freezing and commercialising it? |
–
/ 12
Performance
✓
Correct
0
✗
Incorrect
0
%
Accuracy
0%
⏱
Time Taken
–
Question-wise Result
Daily quiz questions on Telegram
Practice polls with instant explanations, plus every edition and free PDFs
Join Channel
