UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 23 October 2026

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The IMD classifies tropical disturbances in ascending order of intensity: low-pressure area → depression → deep depression → cyclonic storm → severe cyclonic storm → very severe cyclonic storm → extremely severe cyclonic storm → super cyclonic storm. This is the standard intensification ladder used in operational forecasting. Statement 2 is incorrect for two substantive reasons. First, the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) is not a seasonal annual cycle — it is an intra-seasonal oscillation with a period of roughly 30–60 days, meaning it can occur multiple times a year and is distinct from the annual monsoon cycle. Second, the MJO's primary influence on cyclogenesis is through enhancing atmospheric convective activity and low-level wind convergence, thereby favouring both the genesis and intensification of cyclones — not merely through sea-surface temperature modulation. The MJO's 'active phase' over the Indian Ocean creates an environment conducive to cyclone formation, which is why IMD tracks its phase when issuing extended-range outlooks. Statement 3 is correct. Under the North Indian Ocean naming protocol coordinated through IMD (the RSMC for the region), member countries — including Bangladesh, India, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, UAE, and Yemen — contribute names in rotation. Critically, a disturbance is given a name only when it intensifies to the threshold of a cyclonic storm (≥ 3-minute sustained winds of 63 km/h); before that it carries only a tracking identifier (such as the model tag '98B') and a numbered designation as a depression.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. OMSS-D is precisely the instrument by which FCI releases central pool wheat and rice into the open market to exert downward pressure on retail and wholesale food grain prices — it is a price-stabilisation tool deployed during periods of supply tightness or price surges. Statement 2 is also correct. The wheat auctioned under OMSS-D comes from FCI's buffer and operational stocks; every tonne sold reduces the government's holding. This is the mechanism by which the scheme 'offloads' surplus — it is not a separate procurement but a draw-down of existing stocks. Statement 3 is incorrect. OMSS-D does not operate through a fixed-price window. It uses a competitive e-auction process: FCI sets a reserve price and buyers bid; the wheat goes to the highest bidder. It is precisely this competitive bidding mechanism — reflected in the 'winning price' reported after each auction — that determines the actual sale price, which can and does vary from week to week across different delivery points.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution embody the guarantee of equality before law and the right to life and personal liberty respectively. When two similarly placed offenders receive vastly different sentences due to unguided judicial discretion, this raises a genuine constitutional concern about arbitrariness (Article 14) and fair procedure (Article 21). This is precisely why sentencing disparity is not merely a procedural issue but has constitutional dimensions. Statement 2 is also correct: The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — specifically Sections 3, 4 and 6 — obligates courts to consider probation for eligible offenders rather than defaulting automatically to custodial sentences. Sections 401 and 402 of the BNSS similarly provide statutory alternatives to imprisonment. These provisions already exist in Indian law; the problem is that there is no overarching framework guiding courts on how to weigh these alternatives against competing aims such as deterrence and rehabilitation. Statement 3 is incorrect: The task of framing a sentencing policy lies with the legislature (Parliament), not the judiciary. Sentencing discretion is exercised by courts, but the policy framework within which that discretion operates is a legislative function; its implementation falls within the executive domain. Courts can direct the Centre to examine a sentencing policy (as the Supreme Court did in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, 2024), but cannot themselves frame it.