Current Affairs 19 September 2026: Today's GK & MCQs

The correct answer is Cochin Shipyard Limited, Kochi. The Ministry of Defence stated that the keel laying ceremony of the first ship of the Indian Navy's Next Generation Missile Vessel project was held at Cochin Shipyard Limited in Kochi on 18 September 2026, with Vice Admiral Sanjay Sadhu, Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, as the Chief Guest. The contract for construction of the NGMVs had been concluded with Cochin Shipyard Limited in March 2023, so the same yard that holds the contract also laid the keel.

The other options name shipyards that the release does not connect with this ceremony. Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders in Mumbai, Garden Reach Shipbuilders in Kolkata and Hindustan Shipyard in Visakhapatnam are not mentioned anywhere in the Ministry's statement on this event, and attributing the NGMV keel laying to any of them would be incorrect. For the examination, the pairing to memorise is straightforward: NGMV project, first ship, Cochin Shipyard Limited, Kochi, 18 September 2026.

The correct answer is March 2023. The Ministry of Defence release states that the contract for construction of the NGMVs was concluded with Cochin Shipyard Limited in March 2023. The keel laying of the first ship then took place on 18 September 2026, so candidates should keep the two dates separate: the contract date marks the order, while the keel laying date marks the formal start of construction on the slipway.

Option C, September 2026, is the month of the keel laying ceremony rather than of the contract, and it is the most likely confusion in this question. Options B and D give years that the release does not associate with the NGMV contract at all. Examiners frequently test exactly this distinction between the year an order was placed and the year construction began, so note both dates together along with the yard, Cochin Shipyard Limited, and the ministry concerned, the Ministry of Defence.

The answer is fourteen. The Ministry of Law and Justice announced the elevation of fourteen serving judicial officers, spread over four High Courts. The largest share went to Delhi, which took seven of them, two as Judges and five as Additional Judges. Jharkhand received three as Judges, Karnataka three as Additional Judges, and one officer was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Adding those up is the safest way to hold the figure: seven and three and three and one. Candidates who remember only the number of courts, which is four, or only the Delhi share, which is seven, will miss this. The other options are round numbers close enough to be tempting but none of them matches the announcement.

The answer is the President, after consulting the Chief Justice of India. The release is explicit on both halves: the power is one the Constitution confers on the President, and it is exercised after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The order of those two steps matters, because a question will sometimes reverse them.

Option C does exactly that reversal and is the strongest distractor. The Prime Minister and the Law Minister have no constitutional role in the appointment itself, which rules out option A. A Governor does figure in consultation for High Court appointments under the constitutional scheme, but the appointing authority is not the Governor, so option D fails on the same point. Hold the pair as consultation first, warrant afterwards.

The answer is the Delhi High Court, which received seven of the fourteen, half the total on its own. Of those seven, two were appointed as Judges and the other five as Additional Judges, a split the release sets out separately and which is itself worth noting.

The remaining seven were divided three ways. Jharkhand took three as Judges, Karnataka took three as Additional Judges, and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh took one as a Judge. That last court is worth a second look for a different reason: a single High Court serves both Union Territories, which is a fact examiners like on its own. So the order by size runs Delhi, then Jharkhand and Karnataka level, then Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

The answer is 34,920. Four figures travel together in this item and the question turns on keeping them apart. 34,920 is the number of rural young people starting training in October 2026; 1,164 is the number of batches they are divided into; 3,57,112 is the far larger sanctioned target for the same fourteen States and Union Territories, to be met by 31 December 2027; and 5.6 lakh is the total already allocated across more than 1,200 projects by 24 States and Union Territories.

So option C is the batch count, option B is the sanctioned target and option D is the wider allocation, each a real figure from the announcement but an answer to a different question. A useful ordering is smallest to largest: batches, then the October intake, then the sanctioned target, then the national allocation.

The answer is the Ministry of Rural Development, which is reviewing State readiness and rolling out the second phase of the scheme. The placement of DDU-GKY under Rural Development rather than under Skill Development is the point worth fixing in memory, because the name contains the word Kaushalya and the obvious guess is therefore wrong.

The clue is in the rest of the name: Grameen. The scheme is aimed at poor rural youth specifically, which is what puts it in the rural development portfolio. It is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, its training is tied to placement rather than ending at a certificate, and courses run from three months up to twelve. The other ministries listed all work on employment or training in some form, which is exactly what makes them effective distractors.

The answer is 3,57,112 rural youth by 31 December 2027. This is the sanctioned target for the fourteen States and Union Territories reviewed in the first phase, and it sits well above what actually starts in October 2026, which is 34,920 young people in 1,164 batches. The gap between the two figures is the point of the review: the Ministry is pressing States to move faster so the target is reached in time.

Each wrong option pairs a real figure with the wrong deadline or the wrong scope. The 5.6 lakh in option D belongs to the national allocation across more than 1,200 projects by 24 States and Union Territories, not to these fourteen. Targets for the second phase run over the two-year period 2026-28 and cover all 31 participating States and Union Territories.

The answer is over Rs 5,000 crore. At its twenty-first board meeting, held on 18 September 2026, the National Land Monetization Corporation considered and recommended proposals covering assets of that value. What those assets are matters as much as the figure: surplus land and buildings, identified because they no longer serve the purpose they were acquired for.

The remaining options are round figures of the kind that make plausible distractors in a question about money, but none of them appears in the announcement. Two details are worth carrying with the figure, since a question may ask for either instead: it was the twenty-first meeting of the board, and the same sitting approved the Annual Financial Statements and Directors' Report for 2025-26.

The answer is Central Public Sector Enterprises and other government entities. NLMC does not simply buy and sell. It works alongside whichever body owns the property, identifying which assets are suitable, carrying out due diligence, arranging a valuation and then structuring the process, with transparency, efficiency and value realisation as its stated priorities.

The other options describe owners the release does not mention. Option B in particular points in the wrong direction entirely, since this is public property being put to use, not a rescue of private firms. The purpose behind the whole exercise is worth remembering alongside the answer: unlocking the value of assets that sit underused on government books, which is why the corporation exists at all.

One more point of wording: monetisation is not always a sale. Depending on the structure, the state may lease an asset or take in a partner while keeping the title, so ownership does not necessarily change hands.

The answer is 2025-26. Alongside the monetisation proposals, the twenty-first board meeting cleared the Annual Financial Statements and the Directors' Report for that financial year. These are routine items of corporate business, but they are exactly the kind of specific that a question will pick out precisely because candidates skim past them.

Option D is the strongest distractor, since the meeting itself took place during that year rather than after it, and accounts are approved for a year that has closed rather than one still running. Hold the three specifics from this meeting together and the whole item is covered: the twenty-first board meeting, assets worth over Rs 5,000 crore recommended, and accounts approved for 2025-26.

A small habit helps with items like this: when a release names a financial year, note whether it has closed or is still running, because that alone usually settles the question.