Present Affairs Quiz 08 March 2025
Present Affairs Quiz 08 March 2025
Data
Present Affairs Quiz 08 March 2025 For UPSC Examination
You’ve gotten already accomplished the quiz earlier than. Therefore you can’t begin it once more.
You have to register or signal as much as begin the quiz.
You must end following quiz, to start out this quiz:
-
Query 1 of 5
Electors Photograph Identification Card (EPIC) Quantity
Think about the next statements concerning the Electors Photograph Identification Card (EPIC) quantity:
1. The EPIC quantity is a 10-digit distinctive identification quantity assigned to each registered voter in India.
2. The Election Fee of India (ECI) points the EPIC quantity as proof of identification throughout elections.
Which of the statements given above is/are right?AppropriateReply: (c) Each 1 and a pair of
Rationalization:
• Assertion 1: Appropriate. The EPIC quantity is a novel 10-digit alphanumeric identifier assigned to each registered voter in India by the Election Fee of India (ECI). It ensures transparency, reduces voter fraud, and streamlines the electoral course of. Whereas the format is usually 10 digits (e.g., XYZ1234567), it’s distinct from different voter ID numbers printed on the cardboard.
• Assertion 2: Appropriate. The ECI points the EPIC as an official proof of identification for voters throughout elections. It’s linked to the electoral roll, guaranteeing single registration and sustaining the integrity of the voting course of. The cardboard is broadly accepted as a legitimate ID for electoral functions.
• Conclusion: Each statements are correct, making (c) the right selection.IncorrectReply: (c) Each 1 and a pair of
Rationalization:
• Assertion 1: Appropriate. The EPIC quantity is a novel 10-digit alphanumeric identifier assigned to each registered voter in India by the Election Fee of India (ECI). It ensures transparency, reduces voter fraud, and streamlines the electoral course of. Whereas the format is usually 10 digits (e.g., XYZ1234567), it’s distinct from different voter ID numbers printed on the cardboard.
• Assertion 2: Appropriate. The ECI points the EPIC as an official proof of identification for voters throughout elections. It’s linked to the electoral roll, guaranteeing single registration and sustaining the integrity of the voting course of. The cardboard is broadly accepted as a legitimate ID for electoral functions.
• Conclusion: Each statements are correct, making (c) the right selection. -
Query 2 of 5
Precedence Watch Record by USTR
Close to the “Precedence Watch Record” maintained by america Commerce Consultant (USTR), think about the next statements:
1. Nations positioned on the Precedence Watch Record are those who the U.S. considers to have critical deficiencies in mental property rights (IPR) safety and enforcement.
2. Being on the Precedence Watch Record can result in unilateral commerce sanctions by the U.S. below the Particular 301 Report.
3. India has by no means been positioned on the Precedence Watch Record by the USTR.
Which of the statements given above is/are right?AppropriateReply: (a) 1 and a pair of solely
Rationalization:
• Assertion 1: Appropriate. The Precedence Watch Record, a part of the USTR’s Particular 301 Report, identifies nations with important deficiencies in IPR safety and enforcement that adversely have an effect on U.S. companies. Examples embrace weak patent legal guidelines or rampant piracy.
• Assertion 2: Appropriate. Placement on the checklist indicators potential commerce sanctions or retaliatory measures below U.S. regulation if the nation fails to handle IPR points. Whereas not automated, it will increase stress for compliance.
• Assertion 3: Incorrect. India has steadily been positioned on the Precedence Watch Record, together with lately (e.g., 2023 and prior), on account of issues over pharmaceutical patents, copyright enforcement, and software program piracy. As of March 08, 2025, no important shift has been famous to take away India from this checklist completely.
• Conclusion: Solely statements 1 and a pair of are right, making (a) the precise reply.IncorrectReply: (a) 1 and a pair of solely
Rationalization:
• Assertion 1: Appropriate. The Precedence Watch Record, a part of the USTR’s Particular 301 Report, identifies nations with important deficiencies in IPR safety and enforcement that adversely have an effect on U.S. companies. Examples embrace weak patent legal guidelines or rampant piracy.
• Assertion 2: Appropriate. Placement on the checklist indicators potential commerce sanctions or retaliatory measures below U.S. regulation if the nation fails to handle IPR points. Whereas not automated, it will increase stress for compliance.
• Assertion 3: Incorrect. India has steadily been positioned on the Precedence Watch Record, together with lately (e.g., 2023 and prior), on account of issues over pharmaceutical patents, copyright enforcement, and software program piracy. As of March 08, 2025, no important shift has been famous to take away India from this checklist completely.
• Conclusion: Solely statements 1 and a pair of are right, making (a) the precise reply. -
Query 3 of 5
Definition of the “International South”
Which of the next greatest describes the “International South”?AppropriateReply: (b) A time period for growing and rising economies, usually in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
Rationalization:
• Choice (a): Incorrect. The “International South” is just not strictly geographical; it consists of nations within the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., India) and excludes some Southern Hemisphere nations (e.g., Australia).
• Choice (b): Appropriate. The time period refers to growing and rising economies, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, emphasizing shared socio-economic challenges somewhat than exact location.
• Choice (c): Incorrect. There is no such thing as a army alliance referred to as the “International South” led by India and China.
• Choice (d): Incorrect. No such formal commerce bloc exists involving solely India, China, and South American nations below this label.
• Conclusion: (b) precisely defines the “International South.”IncorrectReply: (b) A time period for growing and rising economies, usually in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
Rationalization:
• Choice (a): Incorrect. The “International South” is just not strictly geographical; it consists of nations within the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., India) and excludes some Southern Hemisphere nations (e.g., Australia).
• Choice (b): Appropriate. The time period refers to growing and rising economies, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, emphasizing shared socio-economic challenges somewhat than exact location.
• Choice (c): Incorrect. There is no such thing as a army alliance referred to as the “International South” led by India and China.
• Choice (d): Incorrect. No such formal commerce bloc exists involving solely India, China, and South American nations below this label.
• Conclusion: (b) precisely defines the “International South.” -
Query 4 of 5
Undertrial Prisoners in India
Which of the next statements about undertrial prisoners in India is FALSE, primarily based on judicial precedents?AppropriateReply: (c) Undertrials in preventive detention have the identical rights as convicted prisoners
Rationalization:
• Choice (a): Appropriate. Judicial precedents, together with Hussainara Khatoon (1979), maintain that indefinite detention of undertrials past the utmost sentence violates Article 21.
• Choice (b): Appropriate. Part 436A of the CrPC (inserted in 2005) grants undertrials the precise to hunt bail in the event that they’ve served half the utmost sentence, until exceptions apply (e.g., dying penalty instances).
• Choice (c): Incorrect (False). Undertrials in preventive detention (e.g., below UAPA or NSA) have fewer rights than convicted prisoners or common undertrials, as preventive detention is preemptive and never punitive. They lack rights like automated bail consideration.
• Choice (d): Appropriate. The Hussainara Khatoon case emphasised the precise to a speedy trial below Article 21, highlighting the plight of undertrials languishing in jails.
• Conclusion: (c) is the false assertion.IncorrectReply: (c) Undertrials in preventive detention have the identical rights as convicted prisoners
Rationalization:
• Choice (a): Appropriate. Judicial precedents, together with Hussainara Khatoon (1979), maintain that indefinite detention of undertrials past the utmost sentence violates Article 21.
• Choice (b): Appropriate. Part 436A of the CrPC (inserted in 2005) grants undertrials the precise to hunt bail in the event that they’ve served half the utmost sentence, until exceptions apply (e.g., dying penalty instances).
• Choice (c): Incorrect (False). Undertrials in preventive detention (e.g., below UAPA or NSA) have fewer rights than convicted prisoners or common undertrials, as preventive detention is preemptive and never punitive. They lack rights like automated bail consideration.
• Choice (d): Appropriate. The Hussainara Khatoon case emphasised the precise to a speedy trial below Article 21, highlighting the plight of undertrials languishing in jails.
• Conclusion: (c) is the false assertion. -
Query 5 of 5
Sexual Harassment on the Office
Within the context of Justice Trivedi’s remarks, which landmark case established tips to handle sexual harassment on the office, reinforcing strict authorized enforcement?AppropriateReply: (a) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Rationalization:
• Choice (a): Appropriate. The Vishaka case established binding tips to forestall office sexual harassment, mandating employer accountability and strict enforcement mechanisms. This aligns with Justice Trivedi’s name (March 2025) for empowering ladies by means of regulation enforcement somewhat than sympathy.
• Choice (b): Incorrect. Shayara Bano (2017) handled triple talaq, not office harassment.
• Choice (c): Incorrect. Joseph Shine (2018) decriminalized adultery, unrelated to harassment tips.
• Choice (d): Incorrect. Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanded Article 21’s scope however didn’t deal with sexual harassment.
• Conclusion: (a) is the related case supporting strict authorized enforcement.IncorrectReply: (a) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Rationalization:
• Choice (a): Appropriate. The Vishaka case established binding tips to forestall office sexual harassment, mandating employer accountability and strict enforcement mechanisms. This aligns with Justice Trivedi’s name (March 2025) for empowering ladies by means of regulation enforcement somewhat than sympathy.
• Choice (b): Incorrect. Shayara Bano (2017) handled triple talaq, not office harassment.
• Choice (c): Incorrect. Joseph Shine (2018) decriminalized adultery, unrelated to harassment tips.
• Choice (d): Incorrect. Maneka Gandhi (1978) expanded Article 21’s scope however didn’t deal with sexual harassment.
• Conclusion: (a) is the related case supporting strict authorized enforcement.
Leave a Reply