UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 2 November 2026

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Section 163 of the BNSS (successor to Section 144 CrPC) confers on an Executive Magistrate the power to issue orders directing persons to abstain from a certain act or to take certain precautionary measures when there is sufficient ground to apprehend danger or injury to any person, disturbance of public tranquillity, riot, or affray. The foundational requirement is a reasonable apprehension of a threat to public order or tranquillity — the power is preventive, not punitive, and must be exercised proportionately. A blanket prohibitory order issued not because peaceful lawful activity poses any threat to peace, but merely because elections are imminent or because authorities are suspicious of the motivations of the persons involved, exceeds this power and infringes the fundamental freedoms of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently held that restrictions on these freedoms must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), and a preventive order under Section 144 CrPC / Section 163 BNSS that lacks a factual foundation of apprehended breach of peace fails that test. Statement 2 is incorrect on two grounds. First, an order under Section 163 BNSS is an executive/administrative order passed by a Magistrate, not a decree or order of a civil court — it does not operate as a court injunction. Second, the primary remedy against such an order is NOT restricted to an appellate route to the High Court; a person aggrieved by such a prohibitory order may challenge it by moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction) or the Supreme Court under Article 32, particularly when fundamental rights under Article 19 are alleged to be violated. The power to challenge via writ has been firmly established in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and cannot be displaced by any statutory appellate framework.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: the northeast monsoon season over peninsular India runs from October to December, and October historically accounts for the largest share of total seasonal rainfall in Kerala — a well-established climatological pattern. Statement 2 is correct: the Madden-Julian Oscillation operates in active and suppressed phases that alternate roughly every 30–60 days. When the MJO moves into a suppressed phase over the Indian Ocean–Bay of Bengal region, it weakens convective activity, suppresses cyclogenesis in the Bay of Bengal, and reduces precipitation — thereby diminishing one of the northeast monsoon's key moisture-delivery mechanisms for peninsular India. Statement 3 is incorrect on a fundamental point of monsoon geography: the northeast monsoon over Kerala and the rest of peninsular India draws its primary moisture from the Bay of Bengal, not the Arabian Sea. Easterly winds carry this Bay of Bengal moisture onshore. The Arabian Sea is a key source for the southwest monsoon, not the northeast monsoon. It is the weakening of easterly winds and the absence of Bay of Bengal weather systems — not Arabian Sea branch winds — that suppresses northeast monsoon rainfall over Kerala.

Explanation

All three pairs are correctly matched. The Rubber Board is a statutory body established under the Rubber Act, 1947, and functions under the Union Ministry of Commerce; it publishes daily price reports and oversees rubber development in India. El Niño is a periodic climate pattern that causes erratic rainfall and drought conditions across major rubber-producing countries in Southeast Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia), reducing latex yields and tightening global supply — exactly the dynamic that drives international prices higher. Synthetic rubber is manufactured from petrochemical feedstocks (butadiene, styrene, isoprene) derived from crude oil; when Brent crude prices rise, the production cost of synthetic rubber rises correspondingly, making natural rubber relatively more attractive and pulling its price upward. Understanding the crude-oil linkage is central to analysing natural rubber price formation, because synthetic rubber serves as a functional substitute and a cost-setting benchmark in the global tyre and industrial-rubber industry.

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: the PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing) system is indeed the central unresolved mechanism within the WHO Pandemic Agreement (2025), designed to govern how pathogen samples with pandemic potential are shared with researchers and manufacturers, and how the resulting benefits — vaccines, diagnostics, treatments — flow back equitably to all countries, especially developing nations. Pair 2 is also correctly matched: the International Health Regulations (IHR), last comprehensively revised in 2005, is the existing binding international legal instrument under WHO that defines member states' obligations for surveillance, reporting, and response to public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs). It remains the foundational governance framework and was not replaced by the Pandemic Agreement. Pair 3 is incorrectly matched: the WHO Pandemic Agreement (2025) did NOT replace the IHR, nor did it transfer pandemic-response authority to the WHO Secretariat. The IHR continues to operate as the binding treaty framework. The Pandemic Agreement is a complementary instrument adopted by member states to address systemic gaps exposed by COVID-19 — particularly around equitable access — but sovereignty in public-health decision-making remains with member states. This is a critical doctrinal distinction in global health governance.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect in its characterisation of NPPA's legal basis. NPPA is not a statutory body in the strict sense — it is an executive body (authority) set up by the Government of India through a Cabinet Resolution in 1997, deriving its regulatory functions from the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Drugs (Prices Control) Order issued thereunder. It is a non-statutory (administrative/executive) authority, not a body created by a dedicated Act of Parliament. Conflating its powers with a statutory creation under DPCO misstates its constitutional character. Statement 2 is correct. Under the DPCO framework, ceiling prices for medicines listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) — i.e., scheduled formulations — are determined through a market-based averaging methodology (simple average of all medicines in a dosage form with market share ≥ 1%), not through cost-based pricing. This market-based averaging formula is a well-established feature of Indian drug price regulation. Statement 3 is correct. Trade-margin rationalisation (TMR) is a distinct price-control mechanism applied to non-scheduled medicines (those outside the NLEM/scheduled list). Instead of fixing a manufacturer's price, TMR caps the percentage margin that the supply chain — distributors and retailers — can add over the manufacturer's price or landed cost. The anti-cancer drug example in recent news (a 30% trade-margin cap) illustrates precisely this mechanism: the intervention targets the distributor-to-retailer-to-patient markup, not the ex-factory price. This tool addresses the phenomenon where a medicine supplied at ₹2,700 carries an MRP of ₹27,000 due to uncapped supply-chain margins.