UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 26 October 2026

Explanation

Statements 1 and 2 are correct. The Supreme Court, beginning with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and reinforced in subsequent cases, established that constitutional courts can award monetary compensation as a public-law remedy for State violations of Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty — without the victim needing to separately file a civil suit. This is an exception to the ordinary rule that compensation is a private-law remedy. Statement 2 correctly captures the presumption of innocence, which is a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence embedded in Article 21: the State's prosecutorial machinery cannot strip a person of liberty on the basis of shoddy investigation without facing constitutional accountability. Statement 3 is incorrect and inverts the legal position. An acquittal does not extinguish the State's liability for unlawful or unjustified pre-trial detention. On the contrary, acquittal after prolonged incarceration on inadequate evidence is precisely the circumstance that triggers the court's reparatory jurisdiction — the State failed in its constitutional duty to protect liberty, and the acquittal vindicates the detained person's innocence, strengthening rather than defeating the case for reparation.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect on two counts. First, occupational exposure to traffic-related air pollutants and construction dust IS associated with the PRISm (Preserved Ratio with Impaired Spirometry) pattern — which indicates reduced lung capacity. The Bengaluru screening found this pattern prominently among pourakarmikas and other frontline workers. Second, the characterisation of PRISm as 'not typically linked' to such exposures misrepresents the emerging evidence: PRISm is now understood as an early indicator of restrictive-range lung pathology that can result from particulate exposure, making Statement 1 false. Statement 2 is correct and reflects well-established environmental health science. Inhaled fine particulates (PM2.5 and ultrafine particles) penetrate the alveolar membrane and enter systemic circulation, triggering chronic low-grade inflammation. This systemic inflammatory pathway links ambient/occupational PM exposure to insulin resistance (diabetes), endothelial dysfunction (hypertension), and adipose tissue dysregulation (obesity) — not merely to lung disease. Leading cardiologists now describe air pollution as 'the new tobacco' for this reason. Statement 3 is incorrect. Physical activity does offer independent cardiometabolic protection, but the LOWER cardiometabolic disease burden among construction workers in such studies is better explained by their younger average age and the relatively short duration of occupational exposure, not by physical activity alone neutralising pollution-linked metabolic risk. Moreover, sedentary occupations like bus driving compound pollution exposure with physical inactivity — making their cardiometabolic burden HIGHER, not lower. The statement inverts the directional relationship without accounting for confounders like age and exposure duration.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: flex-fuel vehicles are indeed engineered to run on varying blends of petrol and ethanol, and the emission standards that govern them — including those for E85 and E100 fuels — are specified under Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The recent amendment to these rules extended the permitted fuel specifications to include E100 alongside E85. Statement 2 is incorrect: the permission to use E100 is restricted specifically to vehicles designed by original equipment manufacturers as flex-fuel vehicles. It does not extend to all petrol-powered vehicles. A standard petrol vehicle lacks the engine calibration, fuel system components, and materials compatibility required to run on nearly pure ethanol; using E100 in such vehicles would be both mechanically damaging and outside the regulatory permission. Statement 3 is correct: a core rationale of India's ethanol blending programme — including the National Biofuel Policy — is energy import substitution. By replacing imported crude-oil-derived petrol with domestically produced ethanol (largely from sugarcane and surplus foodgrains), India reduces its foreign-exchange outflow on petroleum imports, improves energy security, and supports domestic agricultural value chains. This strategic logic underpins successive targets for blending (E10, E20, and now E85/E100 for flex-fuel vehicles).

Explanation

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. The Supreme Court has consistently held that press freedom flows from this general right — it is not a separate right confined to credentialled journalists. Citizens at large, including non-accredited or freelance journalists, share in this right (pair 1 is correctly matched). Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech, but the permissible grounds — sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence — do not include the ground that a person lacks a government-issued press card or professional accreditation. Accreditation schemes may regulate access to specific official spaces or sources, but they cannot operate as a general restriction on the exercise of free speech (pair 2 is correctly matched). PIB accreditation is an administrative credential that grants practical access to official sources and events; it does not create or confer a fundamental right. A fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) flows from the Constitution itself, not from an executive accreditation scheme. Therefore, the absence of PIB accreditation does not extinguish the citizen's Article 19(1)(a) right, and the accreditation itself cannot be described as conferring a fundamental right enforceable under Article 32 (pair 3 is incorrectly matched).

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) is a new international financing instrument created in 2022 and operationalised in 2023 under the UNFCCC architecture specifically to help developing countries cope with loss and damage caused by climate-related events. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched: the Kyoto Protocol (1997) did NOT introduce Nationally Determined Contributions. It imposed top-down, legally binding emission-reduction targets exclusively on Annex I (developed) countries, using flexible mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and Emissions Trading. It was the Paris Agreement (2015) that replaced this approach with bottom-up NDCs voluntarily submitted by all Parties. Pair 3 is correctly matched: it is under the Paris Agreement framework — as part of the broader UNFCCC climate-finance architecture — that developed countries are obligated to mobilise financial resources for developing nations. The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) agreed by developed nations sets a revised target of $300 billion per year, to be achieved from 2035 onwards, replacing the earlier (unmet) $100 billion per year pledge.