UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 10 October 2026

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Monetary Policy Committee was established under Section 45ZB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, inserted by the Finance Act, 2016. Its core mandate is to determine the policy repo rate required to achieve the inflation target — making price stability the primary objective of monetary policy in India. Statement 2 is incorrect. The inflation target is NOT set by the MPC. Under the RBI Act framework, the Central Government, in consultation with the RBI, notifies the inflation target once every five years. The current target is 4% CPI inflation with a tolerance band of ±2% (i.e., a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 6%). The MPC's role is to meet this externally set target, not to determine it. This is a constitutionally significant distinction: the executive sets the goal, the statutory committee decides the instrument (repo rate) to achieve it.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The 2024 Rules allow an authorised officer of at least Joint Secretary rank to issue a suspension order in unavoidable circumstances, but this is subject to confirmation by the competent authority (Union or State Home Secretary) within 24 hours — a procedural safeguard that preserves accountability. Statement 2 is incorrect and contains a critical doctrinal distortion. The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin (2020) did not hold that internet access is itself an absolute fundamental right, nor did it rule that any suspension is per se unconstitutional. Rather, the Court held that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practise a profession over the medium of the internet enjoy constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Crucially, the Court applied the proportionality test — meaning restrictions on internet services are permissible if they satisfy that test; what is impermissible is indefinite suspension or suspension without a published, reviewable order. The right is to freedom of expression (which internet use facilitates), not to internet access as a standalone fundamental right, and restrictions satisfying proportionality are constitutional. Statement 3 is correct. The 2024 Rules expressly require that a copy of the suspension order be forwarded to the review committee within 24 hours of issuance, and the committee must meet within five days to assess compliance. However, the Rules do not expressly mandate publication of the review committee's findings — a gap distinct from the mandatory publication requirement for the suspension order itself (which was incorporated from the Anuradha Bhasin direction).

Explanation

A 'forward-MFN' clause is correctly described as an obligation binding a party to extend, automatically and prospectively, any better treatment it offers a third country in the future to the original beneficiary. This is distinct from a standard backward-looking MFN obligation, which addresses existing conditions at the time of the agreement. India's inclusion of such a clause in its trade deal with the EU on CBAM is precisely this — any CBAM flexibility the EU extends to the US or another partner must equally benefit India. Pair 1 and Pair 3 are therefore correctly matched. Pair 2, however, is wrong in substance: the standard MFN obligation under WTO rules does NOT permit a member to apply preferential rates within an FTA without extending them to all WTO members — on the contrary, this is exactly what MFN prohibits. It is the GATT Article XXIV exception (permitting regional trade agreements under strict conditions) that allows FTA preferences not to be multilateralised. Conflating MFN with the Article XXIV exception is a classic and important conceptual error.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) inserted Article 15(6) and Article 16(6), which enable the State to make special provisions — including reservations in aided or unaided private educational institutions and in public posts — for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens other than those already covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4). The quota is capped at 10% in addition to existing reservations. Statement 2 is incorrect on two counts: the EWS reservation is distinct from, and is in addition to, reservations for OBCs and SCs/STs — it does not merge with OBC reservation. More importantly, the 103rd Amendment does not fix a combined ceiling of 60% for all reservations; the existing judicial ceiling (from Indra Sawhney, 1992) remains at 50% for reservations other than EWS, with the 10% EWS quota being a constitutionally carved-out addition. Statement 3 is correct. J&K, reorganised as a Union Territory in 2019, is governed under the constitutional framework applicable to UTs. The Lieutenant Governor, as the administrator of the UT, is empowered to frame and implement reservation rules — which is precisely how the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 were amended in September 2019 to incorporate the 10% EWS quota.