📝 Daily Current Affairs Quiz — 24 July 2026
UPSC Prelims-Style Current Affairs Quiz
- Statement 1: Street vendors must constitute at least 40% of the membership of the Town Vending Committee (TVC).
- Statement 2: The Act confers on registered street vendors a right of ownership over the public space allotted to them.
- Statement 3: No street vendor shall be evicted or relocated until a survey has been completed and Certificates of Vending issued.
- Statement 4: The Act prohibits street vending in any area within 50 metres of a school, hospital or place of worship.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: The Act mandates vendors constitute at least 40% of TVC membership, with representation for women and marginalised communities. The TVC is the backbone of the regulatory framework.
- Statement 2 — INCORRECT: A Certificate of Vending recognises only the right to vend at a specified location under specified conditions — it confers no ownership over public land.
- Statement 3 — CORRECT: This is an explicit statutory protection built into the Act to prevent arbitrary evictions. Eviction before survey + certificate issuance is a statutory violation.
- Statement 4 — INCORRECT: The Act creates no such blanket proximity bar. Vending zones and no-vending zones are determined by the TVC based on local conditions — not a fixed distance rule.
Two planted overstatements: Statement 2 (ownership) and Statement 4 (50-metre fixed bar) — both feel institutionally plausible but neither exists in the statute. The Act is a regulatory framework, not a prohibition or property-rights law.
HOOK: TVC: vendors ≥40% of membership. Certificate = right to vend, NOT ownership. No eviction before survey + certificate. No fixed-distance prohibition exists in the Act.
Assertion — FALSE: The corporations did begin removing vendors before constituting a TVC — this part is factually reported. However, the assertion as framed states this as a fact about the corporations' action — and in UPSC logic, the assertion itself is what must be evaluated as a proposition. The assertion is accurate as a factual statement... wait — re-reading: the assertion IS true (removals did happen before TVC constitution). Correction: Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A. The removals happened because the statutory prerequisite (TVC + survey + certificate) was bypassed — which is exactly what R states. Answer is (A).
Assertion-reason questions require evaluating: (1) Is A true? (2) Is R true? (3) Does R correctly explain A? Here both are true AND R is the causal explanation — the removals happened in violation of the statutory precondition R describes. Don't let the double-evaluation confuse you into picking B.
HOOK: A-R method: verify A independently, verify R independently, then ask 'does R explain WHY A happened or is true?' Here yes — the statutory precondition (R) is exactly what was bypassed (A).
Why others are wrong: (A) Transit method requires the planet to pass in front of its star; not used here. (B) Radial velocity was used to confirm the discovery, not initiate it. (C) Radial velocity analysis was part of the process but spectroscopic chemical fingerprinting was the primary detection method. (D) Astrometric wobble was not involved.
Radial velocity was used in the confirmation process, making Option B a high-quality distractor. The UPSC precision required: spectroscopy (NIRSpec + CO lines) was the primary detection; radial velocity was confirmatory. The distinction between detection and confirmation is the trap.
HOOK: Exoplanet detection methods: Transit, Radial Velocity, Direct Imaging, Spectroscopy, Astrometry, Microlensing. Beta Pic d: NIRSpec + CO absorption lines = primary detection. MIRI (H2O + CH4) = atmospheric confirmation.
- Statement 1: CITES Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction; commercial trade in such species is generally prohibited.
- Statement 2: CITES Appendix II permits regulated international trade subject to export permits to ensure trade does not threaten species survival.
- Statement 3: Kutki (Picrorhiza kurroa) is listed in CITES Appendix I, given its classification as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List.
- Statement 4: CITES regulates international trade in wildlife but does not directly govern domestic trade within member countries.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: Appendix I = species threatened with extinction; commercial trade is generally prohibited; even non-commercial trade requires both export and import permits.
- Statement 2 — CORRECT: Appendix II = species not necessarily facing extinction but where uncontrolled trade could threaten survival; export permits required from the country of origin.
- Statement 3 — INCORRECT: Kutki is listed in Appendix II, not Appendix I. IUCN Red List and CITES Appendices are independent classification systems — being 'endangered' on IUCN does not automatically place a species on CITES Appendix I.
- Statement 4 — CORRECT: CITES is an international treaty governing cross-border trade; domestic trade regulation is left to each member country's national legislation.
Statement 3 is the precision trap — conflating IUCN Red List categories with CITES Appendix classifications. These are two separate systems run by different organisations. IUCN 'endangered' ≠ CITES Appendix I. Kutki = IUCN endangered + CITES Appendix II.
HOOK: CITES Appendix I = near-extinction, trade banned. Appendix II = regulated trade, export permit required. Appendix III = national protection. Kutki = IUCN Endangered + CITES Appendix II (not I). CITES = international trade only.
Why others are wrong: (A) India does NOT have unrestricted rights over all six rivers. (C) The Permanent Indus Commission comprises one Commissioner from each country — India and Pakistan — not World Bank nominees. (D) The IWT contains no unilateral abrogation clause with six months' notice; it has a dispute resolution mechanism but no simple exit provision.
Option C is the highest-quality distractor: since the World Bank brokered the IWT, test-takers assume it also staffs the Commission. But the PIC comprises national commissioners from India and Pakistan — the World Bank is not a standing member.
HOOK: IWT (1960): Eastern rivers = India unrestricted (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej). Western rivers = Pakistan; India retains limited non-consumptive rights (run-of-river hydro, limited irrigation, navigation). Permanent Indus Commission = one commissioner each from India and Pakistan.
- Statement 1: The Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSC) scheme, launched in 2019, is partially funded through the Nirbhaya Fund and is exclusively for the trial of rape and POCSO cases.
- Statement 2: In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002), the Supreme Court held that courts must dispose of all criminal cases within two years as a constitutional imperative.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: The FTSC scheme (2019) is indeed partially funded by the Nirbhaya Fund and is specifically designed for time-bound trial of rape cases and offences under the POCSO Act. It is not a general-purpose fast-track court.
- Statement 2 — INCORRECT: In Ramachandra Rao (2002), a seven-judge Constitution Bench held the opposite — it is 'neither advisable nor judicially permissible' to prescribe a universal outer time limit for criminal proceedings. There is no two-year constitutional imperative.
Statement 2 inverts the Ramachandra Rao holding. The judgment is famous precisely because it refused to prescribe time limits — yet the planted statement claims the opposite. UPSC frequently tests knowledge of what landmark judgments actually held, not what sounds plausible.
HOOK: Nirbhaya Fund → FTSCs (rape + POCSO only). Ramachandra Rao (2002): 7-judge bench — explicitly refused to prescribe outer time limit for criminal proceedings. BNSS 'recommends' 2 years/2 months — aspirational, not a constitutional mandate.
- Statement 1: JWST's NIRSpec (Near-Infrared Spectrograph) Integral Field Unit can observe up to 100 astronomical objects simultaneously.
- Statement 2: Beta Pictoris d was initially detected through carbon monoxide absorption lines in its atmosphere using NIRSpec, while water vapour and methane were confirmed using MIRI.
- Statement 3: Beta Pictoris d is the largest of the three known planets in the Beta Pictoris system.
- Statement 4: The transit method — detecting periodic dimming of the host star — was used to confirm Beta Pictoris d's orbit.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: NIRSpec's micro-shutter assembly allows simultaneous observation of up to 100 objects — a powerful multi-object spectroscopy capability.
- Statement 2 — CORRECT: CO absorption lines via NIRSpec = initial detection; MIRI follow-up = water vapour + methane confirmation. The sequence is precise and important.
- Statement 3 — INCORRECT: Beta Pictoris d has at least 2× Jupiter's mass — making it the smallest of the three known planets (b and c are larger). 'Largest' is the planted inversion.
- Statement 4 — INCORRECT: Transit method was not used. Beta Pictoris d is a directly imaged planet; its orbit was confirmed via radial velocity analysis, not transit photometry.
Statements 3 and 4 carry the traps — 'largest' inverts the actual size ranking, and 'transit method' substitutes for the actual radial velocity confirmation. Both are believable because transit is the most common detection method for exoplanets generally.
HOOK: NIRSpec: 100 simultaneous objects, micro-shutter assembly. Detection sequence: CO lines (NIRSpec) → radial velocity confirmation → MIRI (H2O + CH4). Beta Pic d = smallest of 3 planets (≥2× Jupiter). Orbit confirmed via radial velocity, NOT transit.
Assertion — TRUE: The RTI Act has been weakened through judicial interpretation (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, Puttaswamy) and legislative amendment (DPDP Act, 2023) — its accountability function is demonstrably eroded.
Reason — TRUE: Both facts stated in R are accurate: (1) DPDP 2023 amended RTI such that corruption-related information can now be withheld on personal data grounds; (2) Section 17A PCA (introduced 2018) requires prior government sanction before even initiating an investigation against a public servant.
R correctly explains A: These two specific legislative changes are precisely what have eroded the RTI's accountability mechanism — R gives the causal mechanism behind the assertion.
The temptation is to pick (B) thinking R is 'too specific' to explain A fully — since A is a broad claim and R gives only two reasons. But UPSC A-R format asks whether R is 'a' correct explanation, not 'the complete' explanation. Both facts in R directly cause the erosion stated in A.
HOOK: RTI erosion pathway: DPDP 2023 (corruption info withheld as personal data) + Sec 17A PCA 2018 (sanction before investigation) + Deshpande judgment (personal info broadly exempted). India: 6 mn RTI applications/year = world's highest, yet institutional accountability weakened.
- Statement 1: The maiden flight test of Kusha was conducted at APJ Abdul Kalam Island off the coast of Andhra Pradesh.
- Statement 2: India's currently operational S-400 Triumf is an indigenous long-range SAM system developed by DRDO.
- Statement 3: Kusha is designed to intercept only ballistic missiles and is not intended for use against fighter aircraft or UAVs.
- Statement 4: All weapon system elements of Kusha — missiles, radars, and command and control centre — have been indigenously developed by DRDO and domestic industry partners.
- Statement 1 — INCORRECT: APJ Abdul Kalam Island is off the coast of Odisha, not Andhra Pradesh. Classic state-swap geography trap.
- Statement 2 — INCORRECT: The S-400 Triumf is a Russian-origin system purchased by India, not an indigenous DRDO product. India's desire to replace import dependence is precisely why Kusha is being developed.
- Statement 3 — INCORRECT: Kusha's threat envelope includes fighter jets, cruise missiles, UAVs, and large enemy aircraft — it is a multi-threat long-range SAM, not restricted to ballistic missiles.
- Statement 4 — CORRECT: All elements — missiles, radars, command and control centre — were developed by DRDO laboratories and domestic industry partners, making it a fully indigenous programme.
Only one statement is correct (Statement 4) — a format that trips up test-takers who expect at least two correct statements. Three distinct trap types are deployed: geography swap (1), origin inversion (2), and capability narrowing (3).
HOOK: APJ Abdul Kalam Island = Odisha. S-400 = Russian origin, not indigenous. Kusha threat envelope: fighter jets + missiles + UAVs + large aircraft (not ballistic missiles only). Full indigenisation = DRDO + domestic industry.
- Statement 1: Polymer banknotes are printed on a biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP) substrate and are significantly more durable than cotton-based paper notes, lasting two to six times longer depending on denomination.
- Statement 2: A 2013 study commissioned by the Reserve Bank of India found that replacing cotton-based notes with polymer notes would have adverse environmental consequences due to the non-biodegradable nature of the plastic substrate.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: Polymer notes use a BOPP substrate. Their durability advantage is well documented — they last 2 to 6 times longer than cotton notes, with the greatest advantage in high-denomination notes that circulate less intensively.
- Statement 2 — INCORRECT: The 2013 TERI study (commissioned by RBI) found the opposite — polymer notes have significant environmental benefits over cotton notes. Polymer waste can be granulated and recycled into compost bins, plumbing fittings, and other products. The substrate is non-renewable but recyclable, giving it more than one useful life.
Statement 2 inverts the TERI study conclusion. The intuitive assumption is that plastic = environmental harm, making the inversion feel plausible. The study explicitly found environmental advantages. Recycling is the key concept that defeats the non-biodegradable concern.
HOOK: Polymer substrate = BOPP (biaxially-oriented polypropylene). Durability: 2–6× longer than cotton. TERI 2013 study = significant environmental BENEFITS (not adverse effects). Polymer is recyclable → compost bins, plumbing fittings etc. RBI spent Rs 52,095 crore on printing over the last decade.
- Statement 1: Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) in the interests of public order.
- Statement 2: Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), an assembly of five or more persons is automatically classified as an unlawful assembly.
- Statement 3: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that while authorities may regulate demonstrations, they cannot extinguish the right to protest altogether.
- Statement 4: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requires police officers making an arrest to carry visible and accurate name identification.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: Article 19(1)(b) guarantees peaceful assembly; Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions for sovereignty, integrity of India, and public order.
- Statement 2 — INCORRECT: Under BNS, an assembly of 5+ becomes unlawful only if its common object falls within specific categories (criminal force, resisting law, committing an offence, compelling by threat). Size alone does not make an assembly unlawful.
- Statement 3 — CORRECT: MKSS v. UoI (2018) clearly distinguished between regulation (permissible) and extinguishment (impermissible) of the right to protest — a foundational distinction.
- Statement 4 — CORRECT: The BNSS does require arresting officers to bear visible name identification. However, critically, this requirement does NOT extend to police personnel in crowd-control operations — a legal gap.
Statement 2 is the planted wrong — stripping the 'common object' qualifier from the BNS definition of unlawful assembly. The number '5' is a correct fact (5+ persons), but the automatic classification is wrong. Common object is the trigger, not headcount.
HOOK: Art 19(1)(b): peaceful assembly; 19(3): public order restrictions. BNS unlawful assembly = common object (not mere number of persons). MKSS 2018: regulate OK, extinguish NOT OK. BNSS ID: arrest officers only — NOT crowd-control personnel.
Assertion — TRUE: In the revised ICI, electricity's weight exceeds 30% (up from under 20%); coal halved to ~5.6% and natural gas to ~3.8%.
Reason — TRUE: The structural shift toward electrification and renewables is a documented macroeconomic trend; coal and natural gas's declining relative weight reflects their shrinking share of India's evolving energy and industrial economy.
R correctly explains A: The weight redistribution in the ICI is intended to reflect current economic structure — so the structural energy shift is precisely the reason electricity's weight grew and fossil fuel weights fell.
The temptation is to pick (B) — thinking R is 'too macro' to explain a statistical index change. But index weights are explicitly designed to mirror economic structure, so the macroeconomic shift (R) is the direct explanation for the statistical reweighting (A).
HOOK: ICI weights reflect economic structure, not physical energy volumes. Electricity >30% (was <20%). Coal ~5.6% (halved). Natural gas ~3.8% (halved). Iron ore = 9th sector added. Crude oil and natural gas: 18 and 24 months of continuous contraction.
Why others are wrong: (A) The EAS was established in 2005, not 1994; the ARF was established in 1994. (B) The ARF is NOT a subsidiary of the EAS — both are independent forums within the ASEAN ecosystem; ARF predates the EAS. (D) Both forums are chaired by the ASEAN Chair on a rotating basis — not by India.
Option A swaps the founding years of EAS and ARF (1994 vs 2005). Option B inverts the institutional relationship. Option D misattributes the chairmanship. Option C is the only factually grounded statement, but requires knowing India's precise UNCLOS-linked CoC position.
HOOK: ARF = 1994, 27 members, security dialogue. EAS = 2005, 18 members, leaders-level, ASEAN centrality. Both chaired by ASEAN Chair. India's South China Sea position: legally binding CoC + UNCLOS 1982 compliant + rights of ALL users protected.
- Statement 1: A '123 Agreement' — named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954 — is the legal instrument required for any significant civilian nuclear cooperation between the US and another country.
- Statement 2: Saudi Arabia is an NPT signatory and, like all non-nuclear NPT members, is permitted to develop civilian nuclear energy under IAEA safeguards.
- Statement 3: The Abraham Accords (2020) normalised relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco — Saudi Arabia has not yet joined the Accords.
- Statement 4: Unlike the proposed US–Saudi deal, India's 2008 civil nuclear agreement with the US did not grant India rights to uranium enrichment or reprocessing in US-supplied facilities.
- Statement 1 — CORRECT: '123 Agreements' are mandated by Section 123, US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. The US has such agreements with 50+ countries. They govern all significant nuclear cooperation.
- Statement 2 — CORRECT: Saudi Arabia is an NPT signatory. Under the NPT, non-nuclear weapons states are entitled to peaceful nuclear energy under IAEA safeguards — enrichment is permitted but must be declared and verified.
- Statement 3 — CORRECT: The Abraham Accords (September 2020) normalised Israel–UAE, Israel–Bahrain, Israel–Sudan, Israel–Morocco relations. Saudi Arabia has not signed. Trump's linkage of the nuclear deal to Saudi normalisation with Israel is a condition for the future, not a completed fact.
- Statement 4 — CORRECT: India's 2008 123 Agreement did not include enrichment or reprocessing rights in US-supplied facilities — making the potential Saudi enrichment clause a significant departure from precedent.
The all-correct trap: when all statements appear sound, test-takers second-guess themselves and pick a partial option. In UPSC, all-correct questions do appear. Verify each independently: (1) Section 123 definition ✓, (2) NPT non-nuclear state rights ✓, (3) Abraham Accords members ✓, (4) India 2008 deal scope ✓.
HOOK: 123 Agreement = Section 123, US Atomic Energy Act 1954. NPT: non-nuclear states may enrich under IAEA safeguards. Abraham Accords: UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco (NOT Saudi Arabia). India 2008 deal: no enrichment rights. All four TRUE.
Traditional wild harvesting uprooted the entire plant (including the medicinally inert fibrous roots), destroying the mother plant. The stolon method corrects this by targeting only the correct plant part and leaving the productive plant in place.
(C) is the planted wrong — fibrous roots are medicinally inert, not the primary medicinal component. The stolons are.
Option C exploits the 'roots = drug' myth — a persistent misconception that the article explicitly corrects. Kutki's commercial product is the stolon, not the root. Option A (ex-situ seed banking) and Option D (lunar cycles) are invented distractors.
HOOK: Kutki conservation breakthrough: stolon (creeping stem with nodes) ≠ root (fibrous, medicinally inert). Stolon harvest = mother plant survives = perennial yield. 180 farmers in Mandi district. IUCN Red List endangered + CITES Appendix II.
