Current Affairs MCQs for UPSC Prelims — September 2026
Q1. With reference to the Disha Salian case and the Bombay High Court's order of September 2026, consider the following statements:
1. The Mumbai Police originally treated the death as an Accidental Death Report and did not register a First Information Report.
2. The petition decided by the Bombay High Court was filed by the deceased's father, seeking registration of an FIR and transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
3. While ordering the CBI investigation, the Division Bench directed that the individuals named in the petition be arraigned as accused at the outset of the investigation.
4. The petitioner had earlier moved the Supreme Court, which itself ordered the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?
- The Mumbai Police originally treated the death as an Accidental Death Report and did not register a First Information Report.
- The petition decided by the Bombay High Court was filed by the deceased's father, seeking registration of an FIR and transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
- While ordering the CBI investigation, the Division Bench directed that the individuals named in the petition be arraigned as accused at the outset of the investigation.
- The petitioner had earlier moved the Supreme Court, which itself ordered the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
- A. 1 and 2
- B. 2 and 3
- C. 3 and 4
- D. 1, 3 and 4
Q2. In June 2020, the death of celebrity manager Disha Salian at Malad and the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput at Bandra occurred within days of each other, a proximity that drove the demand to link the two probes. The two deaths were separated by an interval of how many days?
- A. Two days
- B. Six days
- C. Eleven days
- D. Nineteen days
Q3. In directing Tamil Nadu to create a 'specified channel' for purse seine vessels transiting to the exclusive economic zone, the Supreme Court rested its direction principally on which one of the following?
- A. Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which provide for specified channels for the transit of fishing vessels
- B. Rule 17(7) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020, which imposes a permanent ban on all mechanised fishing in the State's waters
- C. The Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025, which vest exclusive authority over transit corridors in the Central Government
- D. Entry 21 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule, which confers on coastal States exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries in all Indian waters
Q4. Consider the following statements comparing the Supreme Court's earlier and latest orders on purse seine fishing off Tamil Nadu:
1. In February 2023 the Court had allowed purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters on a conditional basis, limited to two days a week and subject to vessel tracking.
2. The order of September 2026 directs Tamil Nadu to frame rules for a 'specified channel' under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020.
3. The 2026 order lifts the prohibition on purse seine fishing within Tamil Nadu's territorial waters contained in Rule 17(7) of the 2020 Rules.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- In February 2023 the Court had allowed purse seine fishing beyond Tamil Nadu's territorial waters on a conditional basis, limited to two days a week and subject to vessel tracking.
- The order of September 2026 directs Tamil Nadu to frame rules for a 'specified channel' under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020.
- The 2026 order lifts the prohibition on purse seine fishing within Tamil Nadu's territorial waters contained in Rule 17(7) of the 2020 Rules.
- A. 1 and 3 only
- B. 1 and 2 only
- C. 2 and 3 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Q5. The wrestler's disqualification from the women's 50kg event at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, following the second-day morning weigh-in, was tested in appeal before which forum, and on what reasoning was the disqualification allowed to stand?
- A. The Disciplinary Commission of the International Olympic Committee, which held that no tolerance margin whatsoever is admissible at a second-day weigh-in
- B. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, which held that the onus of remaining within the weight limit rests on the athlete, even while describing the consequence of failing that weigh-in as draconian
- C. The Appeals Tribunal of United World Wrestling, which held that the second-day weigh-in may be dispensed with only in the case of athletes who have already qualified for the final
- D. The Delhi High Court, which held that the choice of the weight category in which to compete was the athlete's own and therefore not open to judicial review
Q6. The post-pregnancy return-to-play framework announced by the International Cricket Council in 2026 is structured around six sequential stages, popularly called the 'six Rs'. Which one of the following correctly names those six stages?
- A. Recover, Reassure, Rebuild, Re-enter, Reward and Review
- B. Rest, Rehabilitate, Reassess, Reintegrate, Race and Retain
- C. Readiness, Recovery, Referral, Rescheduling, Ranking and Return
- D. Ready, Review, Restore, Recondition, Return and Refine
Q7. On 1 September 2026, the Delhi High Court issued notice on the wrestler's plea seeking a structured framework for women athletes returning to competition after maternity. On how many respondents was notice issued in that plea?
- A. Two
- B. Three
- C. Four
- D. Five