UPSC Prelims Practice
Current Affairs Quiz 10 August 2026
Daily Practice
Test Your Knowledge
13 questions based on today’s current affairs & editorials
13 MCQs
Explanations
Statistics
Timed
Choose number of questions
Question 1 of 13
The National Supercomputing Mission (NSM), under which Param Pragya’s AI-HPC facility at IIT Delhi has been inaugurated, is jointly implemented by which two agencies?
FACT: NSM, launched in 2015 by MeitY and DST with an outlay of about Rs 4,500 crore, is implemented jointly by C-DAC, Pune (India’s supercomputing R&D pioneer since PARAM 8000 in 1991) and IISc, Bengaluru. Param Pragya, inaugurated at IIT Delhi’s Sonipat campus on August 8, 2026, is the latest addition to NSM’s network of 37 commissioned supercomputers (40 petaflops cumulative capacity).
ANALYSIS: The IndiaAI Mission’s Common Compute Facility supplements NSM’s general-purpose HPC network with dedicated AI-training GPU capacity, showing India’s compute strategy now runs on two parallel institutional tracks.
ANALYSIS: The IndiaAI Mission’s Common Compute Facility supplements NSM’s general-purpose HPC network with dedicated AI-training GPU capacity, showing India’s compute strategy now runs on two parallel institutional tracks.
📝 Concept Note
NSM traces India’s HPC self-reliance strategy back to PARAM 8000 (1991), built by C-DAC after the US denied India export access to a Cray supercomputer over dual-use/non-proliferation concerns. NSM (2015, MeitY and DST, about Rs 4,500 crore outlay) built a network of facilities from 50-teraflop systems to multi-petaflop machines across IITs, NITs, IISc and national labs, with C-DAC Pune and IISc Bengaluru as its two implementing agencies.
Landmark installations include PARAM Shivay (2019, IIT BHU, the first NSM system) and PARAM Pravega (2022, IISc, about 3.3 petaflops). Param Pragya extends this AI-focused HPC network into IIT Delhi’s expansion campus.
It sits alongside the separate IndiaAI Mission (Cabinet-approved March 2024, about Rs 10,372 crore), whose Common Compute Facility subsidises GPU access for start-ups and researchers, targeting 100,000 GPUs by end-2026.
Landmark installations include PARAM Shivay (2019, IIT BHU, the first NSM system) and PARAM Pravega (2022, IISc, about 3.3 petaflops). Param Pragya extends this AI-focused HPC network into IIT Delhi’s expansion campus.
It sits alongside the separate IndiaAI Mission (Cabinet-approved March 2024, about Rs 10,372 crore), whose Common Compute Facility subsidises GPU access for start-ups and researchers, targeting 100,000 GPUs by end-2026.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 (S&T indigenisation, IT infrastructure); GS2 (Centre-sponsored mission governance). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | technology self-reliance, high-performance computing, AI compute infrastructure, indigenisation. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing NSM (general-purpose HPC, MeitY and DST) with the IndiaAI Mission (AI-specific compute subsidy). |
| 📌 Exam Tip | remember the PARAM lineage, PARAM 8000 (1991) to PARAM Pragya (2026), as a Prelims timeline chain. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** should India prioritise sovereign HPC capacity over cheaper foreign cloud-compute access for strategic AI research? |
Question 2 of 13
Maharashtra’s Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Shetkari Karjmukti Yojana (2026) marks a structural departure from the Centre’s 2008 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme mainly because it delivers relief through which mechanism?
FACT: The 2026 scheme pays farmers directly via Direct Benefit Transfer using Aadhaar-linked bank accounts and the Agristack Farmer Registry, bypassing the bank and cooperative-society disbursal route that the 2008 ADWDRS used. The first mass tranche, Rs 5,028 crore to 6.22 lakh farmers on August 7, 2026, followed Aadhaar authentication of 12.10 lakh loan accounts.
ANALYSIS: This shifts the implementation bottleneck from bank paperwork, the CAG-flagged weakness of the 2008 scheme, to Aadhaar-authentication and Income Tax cross-verification speed.
ANALYSIS: This shifts the implementation bottleneck from bank paperwork, the CAG-flagged weakness of the 2008 scheme, to Aadhaar-authentication and Income Tax cross-verification speed.
📝 Concept Note
The JAM trinity, Jan Dhan bank accounts, Aadhaar identity, and Mobile-linked verification, underpins India’s Direct Benefit Transfer architecture across welfare schemes, from LPG subsidy transfer to MGNREGA wages. Maharashtra’s Karjmafi Yojana (Cabinet-approved June 2, 2026; Rs 36,585 crore outlay; about 56 lakh farmers) waives short-term crop loans up to Rs 2 lakh taken between April 2019 and March 2025, overdue as of September 30, 2025.
It contrasts with the Centre’s 2008 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (3.73 crore farmers, Rs 52,259.86 crore), which the Comptroller and Auditor General later flagged for implementation flaws in bank-routed disbursal. DBT-based delivery is presented as reducing leakage and processing delay, though it introduces new bottlenecks around Aadhaar seeding and cross-department data-sharing, such as Income Tax records used to screen out ineligible taxpayer-farmers.
It contrasts with the Centre’s 2008 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (3.73 crore farmers, Rs 52,259.86 crore), which the Comptroller and Auditor General later flagged for implementation flaws in bank-routed disbursal. DBT-based delivery is presented as reducing leakage and processing delay, though it introduces new bottlenecks around Aadhaar seeding and cross-department data-sharing, such as Income Tax records used to screen out ineligible taxpayer-farmers.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 (e-governance, DBT architecture); GS3 (agricultural credit, farm distress). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | JAM trinity, Direct Benefit Transfer, Agristack, moral hazard. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming all Indian loan waivers are delivered the same way; the 2008 scheme was bank-routed, the 2026 Maharashtra scheme is DBT-routed. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | recall the JAM trinity’s three components verbatim, a favourite Prelims fill-in. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** does DBT-based delivery solve moral hazard in loan waivers, or merely change who bears the compliance burden? |
Question 3 of 13
Under which statute does the Central Government derive its power to order the deportation of a foreign national found staying illegally in India, as invoked in enforcement drives like Bengaluru’s Operation Mukta?
FACT: Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, empowers the Central Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit the entry, presence and departure of foreigners from India, and to order deportation. This is distinct from the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 (mandates registration of foreign nationals) and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (entry-document requirements).
ANALYSIS: Cases confirmed as illegal foreign nationals are routed to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which coordinates deportation with the relevant diplomatic mission.
ANALYSIS: Cases confirmed as illegal foreign nationals are routed to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which coordinates deportation with the relevant diplomatic mission.
📝 Concept Note
India’s framework for foreigners rests on four linked statutes: the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (entry documentation); the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 (mandatory registration); the Foreigners Act, 1946 (the principal deportation-power statute, Section 3); and the Citizenship Act, 1955 (determination of citizenship status, including provisions like Section 6A for Assam). The Foreigners Regional Registration Office, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, is the nodal authority for visa extension, registration and deportation.
Operation Mukta (Bengaluru, August 8, 2026) detained nearly 1,950 people across the Whitefield and Electronic City divisions to confirm just 19 as Bangladeshi nationals, illustrating both the statutory machinery in action and the due-process concerns that accompany large verification drives.
Operation Mukta (Bengaluru, August 8, 2026) detained nearly 1,950 people across the Whitefield and Electronic City divisions to confirm just 19 as Bangladeshi nationals, illustrating both the statutory machinery in action and the due-process concerns that accompany large verification drives.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 (internal security, illegal migration); GS2 (citizenship law, statutory bodies like FRRO). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Foreigners Act 1946, FRRO, deportation, illegal migration. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 (a registration duty) with the Foreigners Act, 1946 (the deportation power); they are separate statutes with separate functions. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | FRRO sits under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Ministry of External Affairs, a frequent Prelims trap. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** how should police balance rapid identity verification with the risk of wrongful detention of genuine citizens lacking documents on hand? |
Question 4 of 13
Operation Mukta detained nearly 1,950 people to confirm only 19 as illegal foreign nationals. From a public-administration ethics standpoint, which principle is most directly engaged by the concern that such large-scale verification drives risk disproportionate hardship to genuine citizens?
FACT: Proportionality requires that the means used by the state, mass detention for verification, be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, identifying undocumented foreign nationals, and that less intrusive alternatives be considered where available. Detaining about 1,950 people to confirm 19 illustrates the tension the governance-ethics literature calls disproportionate means.
ANALYSIS: This is distinct from legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, which concern broken state promises, and from pith and substance, a federalism doctrine for classifying laws, not a due-process safeguard for individuals.
ANALYSIS: This is distinct from legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, which concern broken state promises, and from pith and substance, a federalism doctrine for classifying laws, not a due-process safeguard for individuals.
📝 Concept Note
Ethics in governance requires balancing the state’s legitimate security and administrative aims against the rights and dignity of individuals subject to state action. The proportionality principle, drawn from Indian administrative and constitutional law and applied by courts in cases involving personal liberty, asks whether an intrusive measure is suitable, necessary (no less-restrictive alternative available), and balanced against the harm caused.
In law-enforcement verification drives, due-process safeguards, time-bound detention, trained personnel who can distinguish valid-but-unfamiliar documents from forged ones, prompt release of confirmed citizens, and protection against linguistic profiling (as flagged for Bengali-speaking migrant workers in past drives elsewhere), operationalise this principle. GS4 case studies often test whether an administrator would prioritise efficient enforcement or individual dignity when the two appear to conflict.
In law-enforcement verification drives, due-process safeguards, time-bound detention, trained personnel who can distinguish valid-but-unfamiliar documents from forged ones, prompt release of confirmed citizens, and protection against linguistic profiling (as flagged for Bengali-speaking migrant workers in past drives elsewhere), operationalise this principle. GS4 case studies often test whether an administrator would prioritise efficient enforcement or individual dignity when the two appear to conflict.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS4 (ethics in public administration, probity); GS2 (administrative law, judicial review of executive action); GS3 (internal security operations). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | proportionality, due process, probity in governance, profiling risk. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | treating proportionality and reasonableness as identical; proportionality is a more structured, multi-step test. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | GS4 case studies frequently pose a security-versus-liberty dilemma; frame answers using proportionality’s suitability-necessity-balance structure. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** should identity-verification drives set an internal accountability threshold on the detention-to-confirmation ratio? |
Question 5 of 13
HAL’s original licensed production of 222 Su-30MKI fighters at its Nashik facility was carried out under an agreement signed with which Russian entity?
FACT: India signed an October 2000 MoU with the Irkutsk Aircraft Production Association (now Irkut Corporation) for licensed production of 140 Su-30MKIs, formalised in a December 2000 HAL-Rosoboronexport contract worth over $3 billion; HAL ultimately delivered 222 Su-30MKIs from Nashik. ANALYSIS: The December 2024 Rs 11,000-crore contract for 12 new jets (over 50 percent indigenous content) restarts this dormant line to replace accident losses, not to expand squadron numbers, against a backdrop of the IAF’s actual squadron strength (roughly 29-31) trailing its sanctioned 42.
📝 Concept Note
The Su-30MKI is the IAF’s largest fighter fleet by squadron count, born from a November 1996 agreement worth about $1.46 billion with Sukhoi and the India-specific “MKI” variant, which pairs a Russian airframe and engine with French and Israeli avionics. Licensed production ran through Irkut Corporation and HAL’s Nashik division from the early 2000s, ultimately building 222 aircraft, HAL’s largest production undertaking.
The IAF’s sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons dates to two-front-war planning; actual strength has fallen to roughly 29-31 after MiG-21 retirements, the lowest since 1965. The 12-jet replacement contract (Rs 11,000 crore, December 2024, deliveries by 2029) is distinct from HAL’s separate roughly Rs 60,000 crore “Super Sukhoi” fleet-upgrade programme covering avionics, radar, electronic warfare and flight-control systems for the existing in-service fleet.
The IAF’s sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons dates to two-front-war planning; actual strength has fallen to roughly 29-31 after MiG-21 retirements, the lowest since 1965. The 12-jet replacement contract (Rs 11,000 crore, December 2024, deliveries by 2029) is distinct from HAL’s separate roughly Rs 60,000 crore “Super Sukhoi” fleet-upgrade programme covering avionics, radar, electronic warfare and flight-control systems for the existing in-service fleet.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 (defence indigenisation, Atmanirbhar Bharat); IR (India-Russia defence cooperation). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | licensed production, indigenous content, squadron strength, Atmanirbhar Bharat. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing the 12-jet replacement contract (Dec 2024, Rs 11,000 crore) with the separate Rs 60,000 crore Super Sukhoi upgrade programme; they are different contracts for different purposes. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | remember the chain, Sukhoi (1996 initial deal) to Irkut and Rosoboronexport (2000 licensed-production contract) to HAL Nashik (222 built). |
| 🎤 Interview | ** does replacing accident-lost aircraft on a legacy licensed-production platform advance genuine indigenisation, or merely sustain import dependence? |
Question 6 of 13
Which of the following correctly states the legal protection status of the Asiatic lion under Indian wildlife law, and the government scheme funding its habitat conservation?
FACT: The Asiatic lion is a Schedule I species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the highest protection tier, on par with the tiger, and is IUCN Red List Endangered. Project Lion, announced by the Prime Minister on Independence Day 2020 and sanctioned at Rs 2,927.71 crore over ten years on November 2, 2022, funds habitat monitoring, veterinary infrastructure, and human-lion conflict management.
ANALYSIS: The 16th Population Estimation (May 2025) recorded 891 lions, up 32.2 percent from 674 in 2020, with a majority, 507, now outside Gir’s protected core, evidence cited for Project Lion’s habitat-management approach.
ANALYSIS: The 16th Population Estimation (May 2025) recorded 891 lions, up 32.2 percent from 674 in 2020, with a majority, 507, now outside Gir’s protected core, evidence cited for Project Lion’s habitat-management approach.
📝 Concept Note
Species-specific conservation projects follow the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 Schedule framework: Schedule I confers the highest protection (tiger, lion, elephant, several vultures), while lower schedules carry lesser restrictions. Project Lion sits alongside Project Tiger (1973) and Project Cheetah (2022) as flagship single-species conservation vehicles, each with dedicated funding and monitoring infrastructure; Project Lion additionally funds 33 rapid-response units and roughly 11,000 machans to manage human-lion conflict outside Gir’s boundary.
The Asiatic lion survives only in Gujarat’s Gir landscape, the world’s sole wild population of the subspecies, a single-site concentration that remains a core conservation-biology concern independent of the encouraging population trend.
The Asiatic lion survives only in Gujarat’s Gir landscape, the world’s sole wild population of the subspecies, a single-site concentration that remains a core conservation-biology concern independent of the encouraging population trend.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS3 (species conservation law, Schedule classification); GS1 (single-site habitat and biogeography). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Schedule I, Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Project Lion, single-site vulnerability. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming all "Project X" conservation schemes are funded and administered identically to Project Tiger; Project Lion is a separate, more recent initiative with its own sanction and budget. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | Schedule I of the WPA 1972, not the Biological Diversity Act 2002 (which governs access and benefit-sharing, not species protection tiers), is the correct legal peg for "highest protection" questions. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** should a portion of the growing lion population be compulsorily relocated to a second site despite the host state’s objection? |
Question 7 of 13
The Gir landscape, the world’s only wild habitat of the Asiatic lion, lies within which physiographic region of India, and what conservation-biology risk does its status as a single, unified habitat pose?
FACT: Gir National Park and Sanctuary lies in the Kathiawar (Saurashtra) peninsula of Gujarat, a dry deciduous forest tract, distinct from the Western Ghats, Aravallis or Deccan Plateau. Because the entire wild Asiatic lion population is concentrated in this one landscape, with satellite prides spreading into surrounding districts, a single catastrophic event, such as the 2018 canine distemper virus outbreak that killed dozens of Gir lions, can threaten the whole subspecies at once.
ANALYSIS: This is precisely why the Supreme Court in 2013 directed reintroduction to a second site, Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh, a direction that remains unimplemented over a decade later.
ANALYSIS: This is precisely why the Supreme Court in 2013 directed reintroduction to a second site, Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh, a direction that remains unimplemented over a decade later.
📝 Concept Note
India’s major physiographic and forest regions each host distinct flagship species: the Western Ghats’ evergreen forests (Nilgiri tahr, lion-tailed macaque), the Aravallis’ thorn-scrub (limited large-carnivore habitat), the Deccan’s black-cotton grasslands (Great Indian Bustard), and the Kathiawar peninsula’s dry deciduous forest, the Asiatic lion’s sole wild refuge. Single-site population concentration is a recognised conservation-biology vulnerability, distinct from numerical decline, because it removes redundancy: one epidemic, wildfire, or extreme weather event can eliminate a disproportionate share of a species in one stroke.
The unresolved Kuno reintroduction, ordered by the Supreme Court on April 15, 2013 in Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India, illustrates how a scientifically settled conservation-biology risk can remain unaddressed for institutional and political reasons even after judicial intervention.
The unresolved Kuno reintroduction, ordered by the Supreme Court on April 15, 2013 in Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India, illustrates how a scientifically settled conservation-biology risk can remain unaddressed for institutional and political reasons even after judicial intervention.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS1 (physical geography, biogeographic zones); GS3 (conservation biology, single-site vulnerability); GS2 (Centre-state cooperation in wildlife management). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Kathiawar peninsula, dry deciduous forest, single-site vulnerability, biogeographic redundancy. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming a rising population count automatically means a species is conservation-safe; population concentration risk is independent of headcount trends. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | fix "Gir equals Kathiawar/Saurashtra peninsula, Gujarat" firmly in memory; it is a recurring Prelims habitat-location fact. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** is single-site habitat risk a stronger argument for translocation than the host state’s cultural and heritage objection? |
Question 8 of 13
Renaming a state, such as the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026’s proposal to rename Kerala as "Keralam", is processed under which constitutional provision, and what voting majority does it require in Parliament?
FACT: Article 3 empowers Parliament to alter a state’s name via ordinary legislation passed by simple majority; Article 4 explicitly states that consequential First and Fourth Schedule changes from such laws are not treated as constitutional amendments under Article 368, so no special majority or state ratification is needed. ANALYSIS: The only mandatory safeguard is that the Bill be introduced solely on the President’s recommendation, and, where it affects a state’s area, boundary or name, the President must refer it to that state’s legislature for its non-binding views within a specified period.
📝 Concept Note
Article 368’s “federal provisions” (for example, changes affecting representation of states in Parliament, or the amendment procedure itself) require ratification by at least half the state legislatures alongside a two-thirds special majority in Parliament. Article 3 renaming Bills are deliberately kept outside this heavier procedure: Parliament need only pass them by simple majority after presidential recommendation and, where relevant, reference to the state legislature for its views, which are advisory, not binding.
This is the mechanism that let Madras become Tamil Nadu (1969), Mysore become Karnataka (1973), Uttaranchal become Uttarakhand (2007), and Orissa become Odisha (2011). West Bengal’s “Bangla” proposal (a 2018 Assembly resolution) illustrates the reverse: because the Union government never recommended the Bill for introduction, the state’s own resolution could not force the process forward, showing the Union’s structurally dominant hand in this quasi-federal mechanism.
This is the mechanism that let Madras become Tamil Nadu (1969), Mysore become Karnataka (1973), Uttaranchal become Uttarakhand (2007), and Orissa become Odisha (2011). West Bengal’s “Bangla” proposal (a 2018 Assembly resolution) illustrates the reverse: because the Union government never recommended the Bill for introduction, the state’s own resolution could not force the process forward, showing the Union’s structurally dominant hand in this quasi-federal mechanism.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 (Constitution, Union-State relations, quasi-federalism). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Article 3, Article 4, simple majority, quasi-federal. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming any change to a Schedule automatically triggers Article 368’s special-majority-plus-state-ratification procedure; Article 4 specifically carves out Article 3 consequential changes. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | memorise the renaming precedent list, Madras to Tamil Nadu 1969, Mysore to Karnataka 1973, Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand 2007, Orissa to Odisha 2011. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** does the non-binding nature of state consultation under Article 3 undermine cooperative federalism, as the contrasting Kerala and West Bengal cases suggest? |
Question 9 of 13
The National Tribunals Commission, created by the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, replaces which earlier appointment mechanism for tribunal chairpersons and members?
FACT: Before the 2026 Bill, individual search-cum-selection committees were constituted separately for each tribunal to recommend appointments, a structure the Supreme Court found administratively inconsistent and prone to delay. The National Tribunals Commission is a standing, five-member body (one Chairperson, two Judicial Members, two Technical Members) replacing that ad hoc, tribunal-by-tribunal approach, though individual search-cum-selection committees still function for specific vacancies, now under the Commission’s oversight.
ANALYSIS: The Commission also mandates the government to finalise appointments within three months of a recommendation, targeting the chronic tribunal-vacancy problem.
ANALYSIS: The Commission also mandates the government to finalise appointments within three months of a recommendation, targeting the chronic tribunal-vacancy problem.
📝 Concept Note
Tribunals were created under Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, to provide specialised, faster adjudication outside the ordinary court hierarchy for service matters, tax, company law, environmental and other disputes. A sustained line of Supreme Court litigation led by the Madras Bar Association, R. Gandhi v. Union of India (2010) and subsequent rulings in 2014, 2015, 2020 and 2021, repeatedly struck down executive-heavy appointment structures for undermining judicial independence and the separation of powers, including striking down aspects of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
The 2026 Bill’s National Tribunals Commission, headquartered in New Delhi and covering 16 tribunals including the CAT, NGT, NCLAT, ITAT and SAT, is the government’s latest attempt to build a permanent, standing oversight structure, rather than case-by-case committees, that can withstand this scrutiny while also maintaining a National Tribunals Data Grid on case pendency.
The 2026 Bill’s National Tribunals Commission, headquartered in New Delhi and covering 16 tribunals including the CAT, NGT, NCLAT, ITAT and SAT, is the government’s latest attempt to build a permanent, standing oversight structure, rather than case-by-case committees, that can withstand this scrutiny while also maintaining a National Tribunals Data Grid on case pendency.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 (judiciary, tribunals, separation of powers, statutory bodies). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Articles 323A/323B, separation of powers, tribunal independence, search-cum-selection committee. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing the National Tribunals Commission, a permanent standing oversight body, with search-cum-selection committees, which are still constituted per vacancy and now function under the Commission’s umbrella rather than being entirely replaced. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | anchor the Madras Bar Association litigation chain, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2020, 2021, as the running Prelims and Mains reference for why tribunal laws keep being rewritten. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** can a permanent Commission genuinely outperform ad hoc committees at preventing tribunal vacancies, or does it just centralise the same delay under a new name? |
Question 10 of 13
The Competition Commission of India, which hosted the BRICS Competition Authorities meeting in Udaipur, was established under the Competition Act, 2002, replacing which earlier legislation?
FACT: The Competition Act, 2002, based on the Raghavan Committee’s recommendations, repealed the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969, and established the Competition Commission of India as a quasi-judicial body headed by a chairperson and up to six other members. ANALYSIS: The Commission’s Udaipur meeting (August 8, 2026) with BRICS competition regulators, under India’s 2026 BRICS Chairship, adopted a joint statement on fair competition in renewable-energy markets, reflecting how competition regulation is increasingly applied to emerging sectors, not just traditional cartel and merger review.
📝 Concept Note
India’s post-liberalisation economic-regulation architecture replaced several pre-1991 control-era statutes with market-oriented successors: the MRTP Act, 1969 (anti-monopoly, pre-liberalisation) gave way to the Competition Act, 2002 (regulating cartels, abuse of dominance, and combination or merger review), while FERA, 1973 was separately replaced by FEMA, 1999. The Competition Commission of India, chaired by Ravneet Kaur and comprising up to six other members, all requiring judicial standing or 15-plus years’ specialised professional experience, is appointed by the Central Government via a Selection Committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India or a nominee.
India’s 2026 BRICS Chairship, its fourth time chairing the grouping, under the theme “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability”, places the Commission at the centre of plurilateral competition-policy coordination among BRICS members for the year.
India’s 2026 BRICS Chairship, its fourth time chairing the grouping, under the theme “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability”, places the Commission at the centre of plurilateral competition-policy coordination among BRICS members for the year.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS2 (statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies); GS3 (economic regulation, market competition). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | MRTP Act 1969, Competition Act 2002, quasi-judicial body, Raghavan Committee. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | confusing the MRTP Act’s replacement (the Competition Act) with FERA’s replacement (FEMA); both are 1970s control-era laws replaced in the liberalisation era, but by different successor statutes. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | the Raghavan Committee (2000) recommended the shift from the MRTP Act’s anti-monopoly focus to the Competition Act’s pro-competition focus, a classic Prelims and Mains distinction. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** should competition regulators like the Commission have explicit statutory mandates over emerging-sector issues like renewable-energy market competition, or should this remain sector-regulator territory? |
Question 11 of 13
The unusually intense dry-season wildfire risk behind the closure of Indonesia’s Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park in August 2026 was officially linked to which climatic phenomenon?
FACT: Indonesian officials linked the wildfire, which burned an estimated 520-550 hectares in the park’s sand-sea caldera over its first eight days from around August 3, 2026, to El Nino-linked dry-season intensity. El Nino weakens the usual convective rainfall over the Indonesian maritime continent, since warmer central and eastern Pacific waters shift the region of rising air and rainfall eastward, away from the Indonesian archipelago, leaving vegetation drier and more fire-prone.
ANALYSIS: This is the same broad mechanism behind Indonesia’s historically severe 1997-98 and 2015 El Nino-year forest and peatland fires, though the 2026 event is far smaller in scale.
ANALYSIS: This is the same broad mechanism behind Indonesia’s historically severe 1997-98 and 2015 El Nino-year forest and peatland fires, though the 2026 event is far smaller in scale.
📝 Concept Note
El Nino and La Nina are opposite phases of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a coupled ocean-atmosphere pattern centred on the tropical Pacific. During El Nino, warmer sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific shift convective rainfall away from the Indonesian maritime continent and the western Pacific, producing drought-like dry-season conditions across Indonesia, Malaysia and parts of Australia, while La Nina does the reverse, bringing wetter conditions to the same region.
This has historically translated into severe Indonesian forest and peatland fire seasons in strong El Nino years, notably 1997-98 and 2015. The Indian Ocean Dipole is a related but separate driver: its positive phase (warmer western Indian Ocean) tends to suppress rainfall over Indonesia, while its negative phase enhances it, the opposite of the effect wrongly attributed to it in one of this question’s options.
This has historically translated into severe Indonesian forest and peatland fire seasons in strong El Nino years, notably 1997-98 and 2015. The Indian Ocean Dipole is a related but separate driver: its positive phase (warmer western Indian Ocean) tends to suppress rainfall over Indonesia, while its negative phase enhances it, the opposite of the effect wrongly attributed to it in one of this question’s options.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS1 (climatology, world geography); GS3 (disaster management, forest fires). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | ENSO, El Nino, maritime continent, dry-season fire risk. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming El Nino and La Nina have the same effect on Indonesia; they are opposite phases with opposite rainfall impacts. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | El Nino means a warm central and eastern Pacific, a drier Indonesia and Australia, and a wetter western South America; keep this paired mapping fixed in memory. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** how should Southeast Asian disaster-management planning adapt as El Nino-linked fire seasons potentially intensify with climate change? |
Question 12 of 13
Tamil Thaai Vazhthu, now mandated at Tamil Nadu’s official functions, was originally composed as an invocatory verse by which Tamil scholar-philosopher, after whom a state university is also named?
FACT: Tamil Thaai Vazhthu was written by Manonmaniam Sundaram Pillai (1855-1897) as an invocatory verse in his 1891 philosophical play Manonmaniam; a popular musical setting was later composed by M.S. Viswanathan. It was formally notified as Tamil Nadu’s state song on December 17, 2021, and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, is named in his honour.
ANALYSIS: The Tamil Nadu Assembly’s August 10, 2026 resolution making it mandatory at government functions is presented by the state as an assertion of linguistic-cultural identity, timed against a Union Home Ministry advisory reiterating protocol on the National Song, Vande Mataram.
ANALYSIS: The Tamil Nadu Assembly’s August 10, 2026 resolution making it mandatory at government functions is presented by the state as an assertion of linguistic-cultural identity, timed against a Union Home Ministry advisory reiterating protocol on the National Song, Vande Mataram.
📝 Concept Note
Late-19th and early-20th century Tamil literary and philosophical figures are frequently conflated in general recall, but each is associated with a distinct strand: Manonmaniam Sundaram Pillai combined Neo-Vedantic philosophy with Tamil dramatic verse; Subramania Bharati is remembered for nationalist and social-reform poetry in the run-up to Independence; U.V. Swaminatha Iyer, popularly Tamil Thatha, is celebrated for recovering and publishing lost Sangam-era palm-leaf manuscripts, effectively founding modern Tamil textual scholarship; and Bharathidasan is associated with Dravidian-movement-era rationalist poetry from the mid-20th century. Tamil Thaai Vazhthu’s formal notification as the state song in 2021 and its August 2026 mandate at official functions sit within this broader tradition of language-identity assertion in Tamil Nadu’s political culture.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS1 (Art and Culture, modern Indian literary history); GS2 (linguistic federalism, Centre-state cultural politics). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | Tamil literary revival, linguistic identity, state song, cultural federalism. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | attributing Tamil Thaai Vazhthu to Subramania Bharati, a much more widely recognised Tamil poet; the actual author is the lesser-known Manonmaniam Sundaram Pillai. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | anchor the chain Manonmaniam Sundaram Pillai, the 1891 play Manonmaniam, and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University as a linked fact. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** can mandating a state song alongside central protocol on the National Song coexist as "unity in diversity", or does it inevitably read as a federal friction point? |
Question 13 of 13
The new fungal species Russula griseopurpurata, described from Meghalaya and West Bengal, grows in association with the sal tree (Shorea robusta). Sal forests, part of India’s tropical moist and dry deciduous forest belt, are characteristically distributed across which broad zone?
FACT: Sal (Shorea robusta) is a dominant tree of India’s tropical moist and dry deciduous forests, distributed across a belt from the Himalayan foothills through Bihar, West Bengal, and the Chota Nagpur plateau into parts of the Northeast, distinct from peninsular India’s teak-dominated deciduous forests. Russula griseopurpurata, described from West Bengal and Meghalaya in Phytotaxa on August 5, 2026 by Gauhati University researchers, was found growing in this sal-associated ecosystem.
ANALYSIS: Fungal taxonomy increasingly combines morphological description with molecular phylogenetic analysis, standard modern practice, but the species’ habitat association itself reflects well-established forest-type geography rather than a novel ecological finding.
ANALYSIS: Fungal taxonomy increasingly combines morphological description with molecular phylogenetic analysis, standard modern practice, but the species’ habitat association itself reflects well-established forest-type geography rather than a novel ecological finding.
📝 Concept Note
India’s forest-type classification, following Champion and Seth, distinguishes tropical moist and dry deciduous forests, sal’s primary habitat, from tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen forests (Western Ghats, Northeast hills), thorn forests (arid Rajasthan and Gujarat), montane temperate and alpine forests (higher Himalayas), and mangrove forests (deltaic coasts like the Sundarbans). Sal forests are economically and ecologically significant, historically prized for timber, and support associated flora and fauna including, as this new species shows, specific fungal symbionts.
Species descriptions like Russula griseopurpurata (family Russulaceae, subgenus Heterophyllidiae) rely on both traditional morphological study and DNA-based molecular phylogenetics to confirm novelty, a two-pronged verification standard now expected in taxonomic publication.
Species descriptions like Russula griseopurpurata (family Russulaceae, subgenus Heterophyllidiae) rely on both traditional morphological study and DNA-based molecular phylogenetics to confirm novelty, a two-pronged verification standard now expected in taxonomic publication.
🎯 Concept Kit — tap to expand
| 🔗 Cross-Paper Links | GS1 (forest types, vegetation geography); GS3 (biodiversity documentation, taxonomy). |
| ✍️ Mains Keywords | tropical deciduous forest, Champion and Seth classification, sal-teak distribution divide. |
| ⚠️ Common Mistake | assuming all Indian deciduous forests are dominated by teak; teak dominates peninsular India while sal dominates the sub-Himalayan and eastern belt. |
| 📌 Exam Tip | pair "sal equals north and east India, teak equals peninsular India" as a fixed forest-geography contrast for Prelims. |
| 🎤 Interview | ** does the continuing discovery of new species in well-studied forest types like sal forests argue for stronger protection of even "common" ecosystems, not just biodiversity hotspots? |
–
/ 13
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