UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 30 October 2026

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that every person who is arrested must be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This is a non-derogable constitutional obligation for ordinary arrests under criminal law. The state cannot invoke an overriding 'secrecy' or 'security' exception to dispense with this duty — courts have consistently held that the constitutional requirement applies without exception in the context of ordinary criminal arrests (as distinct from preventive detention under Article 22(3)-(7), which has its own separate framework). Statement 2 is also correct. The Supreme Court, beginning with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and reinforced in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), established that constitutional courts can award monetary compensation in writ proceedings for violations of fundamental rights by the State. Such compensation is not barred merely because civil tort remedies also exist; the writ jurisdiction offers a public law remedy that is distinct from private law tort claims. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 22(1) specifically provides that the grounds of arrest must be communicated 'as soon as may be' after arrest — not after production before a magistrate. Failure to inform at the time of arrest itself constitutes a violation of Article 22, not merely a procedural irregularity; courts treat it as a fundamental rights breach entitling the arrested person to legal relief.

Explanation

The NCLT is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Companies Act, 2013 — not a constitutional body — and its members do not enjoy the same constitutional security of tenure as High Court judges. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs does indeed perform an administrative role in the conduct of the appointment process for Judicial and Technical Members of the NCLT; however, for its own officers and staff (Deputy Registrars, Court Officers, Stenographers, etc.), the NCLT independently manages appointments, a responsibility delegated to it by the Government to ensure effective and independent functioning. Since the NCLT is a creature of statute and the executive retains an administrative role in senior member appointments, Statement 2's claim of full constitutional independence and High Court-equivalent tenure is incorrect. Statement 1 correctly captures the dual-category composition (Judicial and Technical Members) and the MCA's administrative — not substantive — role in the appointment process.

Explanation

Both statements are correct. Moraine dams — the natural barriers that hold back glacial lakes — are composed of loose debris (sand, silt, gravel, boulders) deposited by retreating glaciers. Unlike engineered earthen dams, they lack structural integrity, making them prone to sudden and catastrophic failure that can release millions of cubic metres of water in a short time. This is the core physical mechanism behind GLOFs. Regarding risk reduction, the NDMA's recommended approach follows a sequential framework: first, identify and map dangerous lakes using field observations, remote sensing (including Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery), and geotechnical assessment; then take structural measures such as controlled breaching, outlet construction, or pumping; and finally establish early-warning systems to protect lives and property downstream. Both the physical mechanism (moraine-dam failure) and the NDMA mitigation protocol (identify → structural intervention → early warning) are standard static-syllabus content on GLOF risk management.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) is indeed the Ministry of Home Affairs' nodal framework for cybercrime governance in India. It operates the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), which serves as the centralised platform for citizens to report cybercrimes including financial frauds. Statement 2 is incorrect and represents a common misconception that the 'digital arrest' scam exploits. There is no legal provision for a 'digital arrest' anywhere in Indian law — no statute, no procedural code, and no executive order confers on any law enforcement agency the power to arrest or detain a person through a video or phone call. The concept is entirely fabricated by fraudsters who impersonate CBI officers, Enforcement Directorate officials, or judges to coerce victims. Statement 3 is correct. Indian law does not authorise any police, investigative, or judicial authority to demand that a citizen transfer money in order to avoid arrest or prosecution. Any such demand is per se fraudulent, regardless of how official the caller appears. Candidates must distinguish between what I4C does operationally (coordination, reporting portal, data aggregation) and the non-existence of 'digital arrest' as a legal concept — a distinction that goes to the heart of public legal literacy around cybercrime governance.

Explanation

Under the DPDP Act, 2023, a 'data fiduciary' is an entity that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data, and a core obligation is to give notice to and obtain consent from the data principal (the individual whose data is processed) — Pair 1 is correctly matched. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, did amend the RTI Act, 2005, specifically by removing the earlier public-interest qualification that had allowed disclosure of personal information held by public authorities when a larger public interest was at stake — Pair 2 is correctly matched. Pair 3 is incorrect: India has no standalone Press Act conferring statutory press freedom. Freedom of the press in India is not an explicitly enumerated or separately enacted statutory right; rather, it flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Courts have recognised press freedom as implicit in Article 19(1)(a), but it is a constitutional (not statutory) protection, and there is no dedicated legislation enshrining it.