UnderStand UPSC (11)
Youtube Instagram Whatsapp Linkedin X-twitter
UnderStand UPSC (11)
Login/Sign up
US
UnderStand UPSC Daily Current Affairs Practice
0.00Score / 10
0 / 6MCQs Attempted
0%Accuracy
23 September 2026 • UPSC CSE

Read the news. Test the concept. Write the Mains answer.

This interactive edition converts each current-affairs item into one Prelims-level MCQ, one Mains-level question, and a compact value-addition section for revision.

+2 correct −0.66 incorrect Explanation after attempt Image/PDF answer upload
⬇ Download PDF ▶ Watch Video
NEWS 1 GS2 • International Relations / UN & Global Governance Source: The Pioneer

UN: Trust Is Running Out, Reforms Cannot Wait

Context: Created in 1945 after World War II to prevent another global war and promote peace, cooperation and human rights, the United Nations today faces questions about its effectiveness due to conflicts, Security Council deadlock and inadequate representation.

Original Purpose & Structural Mismatch

Original purpose
Maintain international peace and security through collective action and peaceful dispute settlement; the Security Council holds primary responsibility under Article 24 of the UN Charter.
Structural mismatch
Permanent Security Council membership still reflects the post-World War II power structure, even as new centres of economic/political influence have emerged with limited representation.

Why the UN Is Losing Trust

Paralysis & representation deficit
Veto power of the five permanent members can block collective action; Africa has no permanent seat, and countries like India remain outside permanent membership.
Implementation & finances
Resolutions don't always translate into ground action; delayed member contributions have affected the UN's functioning, widening the gap between mandate and capacity.

Reform Agenda & India's Stake

Reform priorities
Expand Security Council representation; encourage voluntary veto restraint in mass-atrocity situations; move to text-based negotiations; implement the UN80 Initiative for administrative efficiency; ensure timely payment of assessed contributions.
India's stake
Seeks permanent Security Council membership in a reformed UN, citing population, global role, peacekeeping contributions and representation of developing countries — aiming for a representative, effective, rules-based order.
Key Takeaway: The UN's credibility problem isn't really about any single crisis — it's that a Security Council frozen in its 1945 configuration keeps colliding with a 2026 world of new economic and political powers, and administrative fixes like UN80 can't substitute for the political reform the structure actually needs.

Prelims Practice MCQ

+2 correct • −0.66 wrong

Consider the following statements:
1. The Security Council's primary responsibility for international peace and security is provided under Article 24 of the UN Charter.
2. Africa currently holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
3. The UN80 Initiative is aimed at improving administrative efficiency and reducing duplication within the UN system.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explanation: Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect — Africa currently has no permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

UPSC Mains Question

10 Marks • 150 Words

Discuss the structural challenges facing the United Nations and examine the reforms needed to restore its credibility and effectiveness, with reference to India's stake in this process.

Attempt before opening the value-addition tab.
Accepted: JPG, JPEG, PNG, WEBP or PDF. The standalone file previews your answer locally; connect the API hook for real server submission.
Use after attempting the Mains answer
  • Cite Article 24 of the UN Charter precisely as the legal basis for the Security Council's primary responsibility.
  • Name the specific reform proposals — expanded representation, voluntary veto restraint, text-based negotiations, UN80 Initiative — individually.
  • Note Africa's lack of a permanent seat explicitly as the clearest evidence of the representation deficit.
  • Frame India's Security Council case on four grounds — population, global role, peacekeeping contribution, developing-country representation.
  • Emphasise the core principle that administrative efficiency (UN80) must be paired with political/structural reform, not substitute for it.
NEWS 2 GS2 • Governance / Police Reforms Source: The Tribune

Police Reforms Remain a Work in Progress

Context: Despite the Supreme Court's Prakash Singh judgment (2006), police reforms remain incompletely implemented across States, with the challenge being to make policing adequately staffed, professionally independent and institutionally accountable.

Scale and Structural Challenge

Constitutional position
Police is a State subject under Entry 2, List II of the Seventh Schedule.
Strength gap
As of 1 January 2022: sanctioned strength 196.23 per lakh population vs actual strength 152.80 per lakh — nearly 22% below sanctioned strength, straining investigation and beat policing amid rising cybercrime and organised crime.

Prakash Singh Judgment (2006): The Seven Directives

Institutional directives
State Security Commission (reduce political interference); merit-based DGP selection via UPSC with minimum 2-year tenure; minimum 2-year tenure for IG/DIG/SP.
Structural directives
Separate investigation from law and order; Police Establishment Board for transfers/postings/promotions; Police Complaints Authority (State & District level); National Security Commission for Central Police Organisation chiefs.

Why Reform Remains Incomplete & What's Needed

Gaps
Uneven State-level implementation; continuing political interference in transfers/postings; manpower shortages; insufficient separation of investigation from law-and-order duties; weak Police Complaints Authorities.
Way forward
Fill vacancies; professionalise investigation (forensics/cyber capacity); ensure officer tenure stability; strengthen accountability mechanisms; improve constabulary welfare, training and career progression; ensure citizen-centric policing.
Key Takeaway: Two decades after Prakash Singh, the seven directives read almost like a checklist nobody fully completed — States have picked and chosen which reforms to adopt, which is exactly why the same complaints (political interference, weak accountability, manpower shortage) keep resurfacing.

Prelims Practice MCQ

+2 correct • −0.66 wrong

Consider the following statements:
1. Police is listed under the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
2. The Prakash Singh judgment (2006) recommended a minimum two-year tenure for the DGP and key field officers such as IG, DIG and SP.
3. As of January 2022, India's actual police strength exceeded its sanctioned strength.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explanation: Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect — actual strength (152.80 per lakh) was about 22% below sanctioned strength (196.23 per lakh).

UPSC Mains Question

10 Marks • 150 Words

Discuss the seven directives laid down in the Prakash Singh judgment (2006) and examine why police reforms remain incompletely implemented in India.

Attempt before opening the value-addition tab.
Accepted: JPG, JPEG, PNG, WEBP or PDF. The standalone file previews your answer locally; connect the API hook for real server submission.
Use after attempting the Mains answer
  • List all seven Prakash Singh directives precisely and in order — a frequently and directly tested Prelims/Mains list.
  • Cite the exact strength figures — 196.23 sanctioned vs 152.80 actual per lakh population, ~22% gap — for quantitative precision.
  • Name Entry 2, List II (State List) as the precise constitutional basis for police being a State subject.
  • Distinguish 'institutional' directives (Security Commission, DGP selection, tenure) from 'accountability' directives (Complaints Authority, Establishment Board).
  • Include constabulary-level concerns (training, welfare, career progression) explicitly — often missed in officer-focused answers.
NEWS 3 GS2 • Polity & Governance / Judiciary Source: The Hindu

Supreme Court Judgment on Maharashtra's Methanol Rules

Context: On 18 September 2026, in M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 INSC 1009), the Supreme Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, holding the methanol restrictions disproportionate and insufficiently linked to preventing hooch tragedies.

Background & the Challenged Rules

Origin
Following the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy (~93 deaths from methanol-laced liquor), a P.R. Parthasarthy-headed committee's recommendations led to a 2011 amendment introducing Rules 18A and 18B.
What the rules required
Rule 18A(1): sellers had to verify Form A licences; Rule 18A(2): methanol sold to non-drug manufacturers had to be mixed with methylene carmine (colourant) and denatonium saccharide (bitterant); Rule 18B allowed confiscation without a valid Form A licence.

Why the Court Struck Them Down

Constitutional grounds
Applying the proportionality principle (associated with K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), the Court found the measures excessive relative to their objective.
Insufficient nexus
Denaturing methanol at the point of lawful industrial sale did not adequately address diversion/pilferage; mere Form A verification didn't establish actual end-use, and confiscation could conflict with other lawful licensing.

What the Court Suggested Instead

Alternative measures
Stricter licensing/verification; stock monitoring reconciling procurement-storage-consumption; transport controls to prevent diversion; inter-departmental coordination (police, excise, transport, health).
Focus shift
Target the actual illegal supply chain rather than burdening legitimate industrial users; strengthen de-addiction centres and support for affected families.
Key Takeaway: The Court didn't question the goal of preventing hooch deaths — it questioned the method: denaturing methanol at the point of lawful sale burdens legitimate industry while leaving the actual diversion and illegal supply chain largely untouched, which is why proportionality, not intent, was the deciding factor.

Prelims Practice MCQ

+2 correct • −0.66 wrong

Consider the following statements:
1. Rules 18A and 18B were introduced through a 2011 amendment to the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972.
2. The Supreme Court applied the proportionality principle associated with the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment while striking down the rules.
3. The Court held that the State has no legitimate interest in preventing methanol-related hooch tragedies.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explanation: Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect — the Court explicitly recognised preventing methanol-related deaths as a legitimate State objective; it found the specific measures disproportionate, not the objective illegitimate.

UPSC Mains Question

10 Marks • 150 Words

Discuss the Supreme Court's reasoning in striking down Maharashtra's methanol denaturing rules, and examine the alternative regulatory measures suggested by the Court.

Attempt before opening the value-addition tab.
Accepted: JPG, JPEG, PNG, WEBP or PDF. The standalone file previews your answer locally; connect the API hook for real server submission.
Use after attempting the Mains answer
  • Cite the case name, date and citation precisely — M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 18 September 2026, 2026 INSC 1009.
  • Name Rules 18A and 18B's specific requirements — licence verification, colourant/bitterant additives, confiscation — individually.
  • State the proportionality principle's link to K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) precisely, and pair it with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
  • Frame the Court's core reasoning as an 'insufficient nexus' argument — the measure didn't address diversion, not that the objective was wrong.
  • List the Court's suggested alternatives (licensing, stock monitoring, transport controls, inter-departmental coordination) as the solution-oriented takeaway.
NEWS 4 GS2 • International Relations; GS3 • Science & Technology, Security Source: The Hindu

Unsafe Space: Deployment of Weapons Calls for Multilateral Governance in Space

Context: The U.S. has acknowledged deploying 'on-orbit space control weapons' to counter hostile actions in space, highlighting the growing militarisation of outer space and the limitations of existing international rules.

On-Orbit Space Control Weapons

Space control
Capability to protect a country's own space assets while denying, disrupting or degrading an adversary's space capabilities; on-orbit weapons are systems deployed in orbit that can act against other space assets.
Disclosure gap
The U.S. has acknowledged deployment, but specific capabilities remain undisclosed, covering possible roles like satellite protection, disabling adversary satellites and close-proximity operations.

Global Counter-Space Landscape

Major players
Russia: anti-satellite, electronic-warfare and co-orbital capabilities; China: demonstrated ASAT capability and advanced proximity operations; India: demonstrated ASAT capability through Mission Shakti (2019).
Others
France, Japan and the UK are developing various counter-space/space-security capabilities — not necessarily equivalent to U.S. on-orbit weapons.

Outer Space Treaty, 1967 & the Way Forward

Key provisions
Adopted 27 January 1967, in force 10 October 1967 (India ratified 1982); Article I: space free for exploration by all States; Article II: no national appropriation; Article IV prohibits nuclear weapons/WMDs in Earth orbit.
The legal gap
The Treaty does not comprehensively prohibit conventional on-orbit weapons — the key regulatory gap driving current concern.
Way forward
Close the conventional-weapons gap; strengthen UN-led PAROS efforts; build transparency/confidence-building measures; establish escalation-prevention communication mechanisms; regulate AI-enabled/dual-use systems; minimise debris generation.
Key Takeaway: The Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear weapons and WMDs in orbit, but says nothing comprehensive about conventional on-orbit weapons — which is exactly the category the U.S. has now acknowledged deploying, showing how a 1967 treaty has a 2026-sized gap in it.

Prelims Practice MCQ

+2 correct • −0.66 wrong

Consider the following statements:
1. The Outer Space Treaty, 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit.
2. The Outer Space Treaty comprehensively prohibits all conventional on-orbit weapons.
3. India demonstrated an anti-satellite (ASAT) capability through Mission Shakti in 2019.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explanation: Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect — the Treaty does not comprehensively prohibit conventional on-orbit weapons; this is identified as the key regulatory gap.

UPSC Mains Question

10 Marks • 150 Words

Discuss the limitations of the Outer Space Treaty, 1967 in addressing the militarisation of outer space, and suggest measures for strengthening multilateral space governance.

Attempt before opening the value-addition tab.
Accepted: JPG, JPEG, PNG, WEBP or PDF. The standalone file previews your answer locally; connect the API hook for real server submission.
Use after attempting the Mains answer
  • Cite the Outer Space Treaty's key articles precisely — Article I (free exploration), II (non-appropriation), III (international law compliance), IV (WMD prohibition), VI (State responsibility).
  • Name Mission Shakti (2019) explicitly as India's ASAT demonstration — a frequently tested current-affairs-meets-polity fact.
  • State the core regulatory gap precisely: conventional on-orbit weapons are not comprehensively prohibited, unlike WMDs.
  • Name PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) explicitly as the relevant UN-led initiative.
  • List Way Forward measures — legal gap closure, transparency/CBMs, escalation-prevention mechanisms, AI/dual-use norms, debris minimisation — individually.
NEWS 5 GS2 • Polity & Governance / Fundamental Rights / Secularism Source: The Hindu

Cannot Penalise Refusal to Sing the National Song, Says SC

Context: The Supreme Court is examining whether a person can be criminally punished for refusing to sing Vande Mataram, raising the constitutional question of whether respect for a national symbol can be enforced at the cost of freedom of conscience and religious belief.

The Issue & the Court's Position

The issue
The government has prescribed how Vande Mataram (the National Song) should be sung at specified public occasions; the challenge questions whether compulsory singing can be enforced, distinguishing refusal to sing from actively disturbing others who are singing.
The Court's view
The State can decide the form/manner of the National Song at public functions, but this power must operate within Fundamental Rights limits; a person who respectfully refuses on genuine religious/conscientious grounds should not face criminal consequences merely for the refusal.

The Bijoe Emmanuel Precedent

Facts (1986)
In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, three schoolchildren stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing, due to their religious beliefs.
Principle
The Court held their respectful non-singing could not by itself justify expulsion — freedom of conscience protects genuine beliefs even when they result in peaceful non-participation, a principle the Court finds relevant to the current case.

Constitutional Dimensions & Way Forward

Relevant Articles
Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression, including the question of compelled expression); Article 25 (freedom of conscience and religion); Article 26 (religious affairs of denominations).
Way forward
Promote respect/dignity for national symbols while avoiding criminalising peaceful, genuine conscientious objection; penal provisions should target deliberate insult/obstruction, not mere non-participation.
Key Takeaway: The Court's key distinction here isn't about respect versus disrespect — it's between refusing to sing (protected, if genuine and peaceful) and actively disturbing others who are singing (not protected), a line first drawn in Bijoe Emmanuel in 1986 and now being applied to a new context.

Prelims Practice MCQ

+2 correct • −0.66 wrong

Consider the following statements:
1. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court held that respectful non-singing of the National Anthem could justify expulsion from school.
2. Article 25 of the Constitution protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
3. The Supreme Court has indicated that a person who respectfully refuses to sing the National Song on genuine conscientious grounds should not face criminal consequences merely for that refusal.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explanation: Statements 2 and 3 are correct. Statement 1 is incorrect — the Court held that respectful non-singing could NOT by itself justify expulsion.

UPSC Mains Question

10 Marks • 150 Words

Discuss the constitutional principles governing freedom of conscience in relation to respect for national symbols, with reference to the Bijoe Emmanuel case and the Supreme Court's recent observations on the National Song.

Attempt before opening the value-addition tab.
Accepted: JPG, JPEG, PNG, WEBP or PDF. The standalone file previews your answer locally; connect the API hook for real server submission.
Use after attempting the Mains answer
  • Cite Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) by name and its core holding precisely — respectful non-participation ≠ grounds for expulsion.
  • Distinguish 'refusal to sing' from 'disturbing/preventing others from singing' as the case's central legal distinction.
  • Name Articles 19(1)(a), 25 and 26 with their specific protections — expression/compelled expression, conscience/religion, denominational affairs.
  • Use 'genuine religious or conscientious objection' as the precise qualifying condition, not blanket non-participation.
  • Frame the Way Forward point precisely: penal provisions should target deliberate insult/obstruction, not mere non-participation — a key policy takeaway.
NEWS 6 GS2 • Governance & Internal Security; GS3 • Internal Security Source: The Hindu

Drug Trade Will Be Uprooted from India by 2029, Says Shah

Context: The Government has set a 2029 target for a Drug-Free India under the Vision Document on Narcotics Control (2026-2029), shifting focus from merely seizing drugs to dismantling the entire drug ecosystem — production, trafficking, financing, distribution and consumption.

Current Picture & Why the Threat Is Complex

2025 enforcement scale
12.41 lakh kg of drugs seized, 1.48 lakh cases registered, 1.84 lakh persons arrested; ₹836 crore in assets frozen/seized (1,356 cases); ~42,685 acres of poppy and 38,219 acres of cannabis cultivation destroyed.
NCB record
The Narcotics Control Bureau separately seized 1,33,965 kg of narcotics in 2025, with a conviction rate of nearly 67%.
Evolving threats
India's proximity to the Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle; rising synthetic drugs (meth, MDMA); precursor-chemical diversion; darknet/cryptocurrency-enabled trafficking; links to organised crime and narcoterrorism.

Legal and Institutional Framework

Constitutional & statutory basis
Article 47 (DPSP on drug prohibition); NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 8: unauthorised activities; Section 27A: financing traffic; Section 37: strict bail conditions; Sections 42-43: search/seizure/arrest; Section 50: personal-search safeguards).
Institutions
PITNDPS Act, 1988 (preventive detention); NCB for national coordination; NCORD — a four-tier (Apex, Executive, State, District) mechanism; Anti-Narcotics Task Forces notified in all 36 States/UTs.

The 2026-29 Strategy: Four Pillars

Pillars 1 & 2
Enforcement/Intelligence/Operations (targeting kingpins and networks, not just street-level traffickers); Precursor & Synthetic Drug Control (chemical monitoring, forensic capacity).
Pillars 3 & 4
Demand & Harm Reduction (strengthening Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan, drug-free campuses); Capacity Building & Coordination (NCORD, AI-enabled analytics, Darknet/Cryptocurrency Cells).

What a Comprehensive Strategy Requires

Key elements
Financial investigation on major cases; break the full chain (source→precursor→manufacture→transport→finance→distribution→kingpin); integrated border management (Customs, DRI, BSF, Coast Guard, Police); international cooperation via Interpol/extradition; balance enforcement with treatment/rehabilitation.
Key Takeaway: The shift from 'seizing drugs' to 'dismantling the ecosystem' is the real story here — going after ₹836 crore in frozen assets and kingpins, not just the 12.41 lakh kg seized, is what distinguishes disrupting supply from actually breaking the financial and organisational chain behind it.

Prelims Practice MCQ

+2 correct • −0.66 wrong

Consider the following statements:
1. Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 deals with financing illicit drug trafficking and harbouring offenders.
2. NCORD is a four-tier coordination mechanism comprising Apex, Executive, State and District levels.
3. Anti-Narcotics Task Forces have been notified in all 36 States and Union Territories.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Explanation: All three statements are correct, as per the NDPS Act provisions and the current institutional framework for narcotics control.

UPSC Mains Question

10 Marks • 150 Words

Discuss the shift in India's anti-drug strategy from seizure-focused enforcement to dismantling the entire drug ecosystem, with reference to the Vision Document on Narcotics Control (2026-2029).

Attempt before opening the value-addition tab.
Accepted: JPG, JPEG, PNG, WEBP or PDF. The standalone file previews your answer locally; connect the API hook for real server submission.
Use after attempting the Mains answer
  • Use the precise 2025 figures — 12.41 lakh kg seized, ₹836 crore frozen, 42,685 acres poppy/38,219 acres cannabis destroyed — for quantitative grounding.
  • Name the four strategy pillars precisely — Enforcement/Intelligence, Precursor/Synthetic Control, Demand Reduction, Capacity Building/Coordination.
  • Cite specific NDPS Act sections — 8, 27A, 37, 42-43, 50 — rather than referring to the Act generically.
  • Name NCORD's four tiers (Apex, Executive, State, District) and the Golden Crescent/Golden Triangle as India's geographic vulnerability.
  • Frame the strategic shift explicitly as 'seizures → dismantling the ecosystem' (source to kingpin) — the article's central thesis.

← Browse all UPSC Current Affairs editions

UnderStand UPSC logo

A Platform OF The Students
For The Students
By The Students

Follow Us On:

Instagram Youtube Linkedin Whatsapp X-twitter

Student Desk

Student Testimonial

Our Courses

Syllabus

Help Desk

Login

Contact Us

Support

FAQs

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cancellation/ Refund Policy

Career

Free Resources

Daily Current Affairs

UPSC PYQ

UPSC Prelims Quizzes

UPSC Static Quizzes

Static Content Revision

UPSC CSE GS Mains Micro-Syllabus

NCERT Books

IGNOU

NIOS

Demo Lectures

Strategy

Blog

Download Our App

UnderStand UPSC android Old app
UnderStand UPSC iphone Old app

Copyright © 2026 USARAMBHA EDUCATION (UnderStand UPSC). All Rights Reserved.

C.R.O.W.N. of AIR-1