UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 13 October 2026

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution. Because it is embedded in the Constitution itself, it can only be abolished or significantly altered through the constitutional amendment procedure — unlike statutory bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission (established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993) or the Central Vigilance Commission (established under the CVC Act, 2003), which can be wound up by ordinary legislation. Statement 2 is correct. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ECI superintends the preparation and revision of electoral rolls for elections to the House of the People (Lok Sabha), the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), and State Legislative Assemblies and Councils. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments inserted Articles 243K and 243ZA respectively, which mandate separate State Election Commissions for conducting Panchayat and Municipality elections — a constitutionally distinct tier with its own rolls, entirely outside the ECI's jurisdiction. Statement 3 is incorrect. The State Election Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever over State Legislative Assembly elections. Its mandate is confined to Panchayat elections (Article 243K) and Municipality elections (Article 243ZA). State Legislative Assembly elections are conducted exclusively under the superintendence of the Election Commission of India under Article 324. The fact that both the ECI and the State Election Commission are constitutional bodies does not create any concurrent or shared jurisdiction between them — they operate in completely separate electoral domains.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Tenth Schedule vests the power to decide anti-defection disqualification in the Speaker (or Chairman) of the House — the Election Commission of India plays no role in this process. By contrast, disqualification on grounds such as office of profit (Article 102(1)(a) / Article 191(1)(a)) is decided by the President or Governor on the binding opinion of the ECI. These are two structurally distinct constitutional mechanisms. Statement 2 is false. Resignations and disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are two distinct constitutional processes; a Speaker is competent to accept a voluntary resignation even while disqualification proceedings remain pending. Acceptance of a resignation does not automatically make such proceedings infructuous or academic — they survive independently. The Madras High Court's ruling affirms precisely this distinction. Statement 3 is correct. The Speaker's decisions on Tenth Schedule matters, though the Speaker acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, are not wholly immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) held that judicial review is available at the final stage of the Speaker's decision. Moreover, courts can direct the Speaker to follow a fixed timeline for disposing of disqualification proceedings, as the Madras High Court did here by invoking Supreme Court precedents — ensuring that the constitutional trust reposed in the Speaker is exercised with expedition.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is the prescribed mechanism for first-time inclusion in electoral rolls — it requires the applicant to affirm that they are applying for inclusion for the first time. This creates the legal anomaly highlighted in the petition when voters whose names were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process are required to use this very form for re-inclusion, because the declaration is factually inapplicable to previously registered voters. Statement 2 is incorrect on two counts. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, are not framed by the Election Commission of India under Article 324 — they are framed by the Central Government under Section 28(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after consultation with the ECI. This is a critical conceptual distinction: the ECI is a constitutional body under Article 324, but rule-making power over electoral roll procedures vests in the Central Government (not the ECI), subject to consultation. Parliamentary scrutiny is indeed required — making the claim that there is 'no parliamentary scrutiny' doubly wrong. Statement 3 is correct. Section 28(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 requires rules made under Section 28(1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Parliament retains the power to modify or annul such rules. This is the standard 'laying procedure' applicable to subordinate legislation, and it is the basis on which the petition argues that the additional declaration introduced through SIR guidelines — without following this procedure — lacks the force of law.

Explanation

Both statements correctly describe RBI's exchange-rate management approach. First, the RBI's stated policy is to curb excessive volatility — not to peg or fix the rupee at a target level. This is the standard distinction in central-bank forex operations between a 'managed float' (intervening only to smooth volatility) and a 'fixed exchange rate' regime (defending a specific rate). Second, a dedicated dollar window for oil marketing companies — where oil importers source their dollar requirements through designated channels rather than the open spot market — is a recognised tool for reducing concentrated dollar demand that can push the rupee down. By channelling large, predictable oil-import dollar purchases away from the open market, the RBI reduces the immediate demand pressure on the rupee in the spot market without directly fixing its price.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Tiger Reserves are notified by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) under Section 38V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a provision inserted by the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006. This is a distinct statutory mechanism from the creation of National Parks (Section 35) or Wildlife Sanctuaries (Section 26A). Statement 2 is incorrect. While National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are indeed WPA-1972 categories, Biosphere Reserves are NOT created under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. They are designated under UNESCO's Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme — an international designation — and notified administratively by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change without a specific enabling provision in WPA. Statement 3 is incorrect. The tiger conservation framework does NOT treat physical translocation as the preferred strategy for expanding tiger range. The established approach is to recover potential tiger habitat through protection and build up prey densities, allowing tigers to spread naturally. Physical translocation is considered warranted only in rare circumstances — specifically when a suitable area with a recovered prey base lacks connectivity to existing tiger populations. Translocating tigers without ensuring adequate prey leads to human-wildlife conflict and local hostility.