Under which law was the smuggled foreign-origin gold seized by the DRI?

The correct answer is the Border Security Force. The release records that the DRI, acting in coordination with the BSF, seized 89 pieces of foreign-origin gold bars weighing around 11.3 kg from a person near the Indo-Bangladesh border at BOP Halderpara, and that the man, unable to produce documents of lawful possession, admitted his involvement and was arrested. The other options are real central armed police forces, but their names do not appear in this release, and only one other police agency is mentioned anywhere in it, namely the police of Chandauli in Uttar Pradesh, who worked with the DRI in the case of the bars hidden beneath the gearbox of a car. Candidates should remember that the same set of operations covered airports, rail routes and the land border, and that the total came to around 41 kg of gold worth about Rs 62 crore.

The correct answer is 24. The release states in its headline and again in the opening paragraph that the operations resulted in the arrest of 24 persons, including three foreign nationals. Option B is the trickiest distractor, because the figure 22 does appear in the release, but it is the number of foreign-origin gold bars concealed in a box beneath the gearbox of a car in the Chandauli case, not a count of people. The arrests were spread across the cases: one man who owned the melting and die-cutting unit in Delhi, one from the vehicle intercepted coming from Punjab, one near the Indo-Bangladesh border, a passenger and his associate at Howrah, five in the Mumbai airport syndicate, two in the treadmill case including a Chinese national, six at Chennai and two at Calicut. Keep the headline trio together: about 41 kg of gold, about Rs 62 crore in value, 24 arrests.

The correct answer is twelve approved and five operational. The backgrounder states that the government has cleared this many semiconductor projects under the Semicon India programme, and that five commercial semiconductor units were already running by September of that year. The first option is wrong on both counts, understating the approvals as well as the units in production. The third option is wrong because it inflates the approvals and the operating units alike, and no such tally appears in the release. The fourth option is wrong for the same reason and is the furthest from the stated position. The point worth carrying forward is the gap between approvals and operations: a project being approved does not mean a plant is producing, which is why the release reports the two numbers separately. Candidates should also link this with the Production Linked Incentive schemes and the India Semiconductor Mission, the two instruments named as driving this build-up.

The correct answer is Amitesh Kumar Sinha, Chief Executive Officer of the India Semiconductor Mission. The backgrounder names him as the moderator of the session, which brought senior representatives of the leading industry associations together to discuss how deeper cooperation could speed up the country's semiconductor and electronics plans. The Chief Executive Officer of NITI Aayog is wrong, as that office is not connected with this session in the release. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of India is wrong because the discussion concerned manufacturing and industry coordination rather than monetary policy, and no central bank official is mentioned. The Chairman of ISRO is wrong for the same reason; the space agency has no role in the panel described. Aspirants should remember the mission's name along with the office, because questions often ask which body the moderator headed rather than his name, and the India Semiconductor Mission is itself a frequently tested institution.

The correct answer is more than 600. The backgrounder records that the event brought together this many exhibitors, of whom close to three hundred were international companies, and treats that mix as a sign of the global interest now being shown in the country's semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The first option is wrong because it falls short of the stated count and appears nowhere in the release. The third option is wrong for the opposite reason; it overstates the number, and no such figure is given. The fourth option is wrong as well, since a four-figure count is not claimed anywhere in the document. The useful pairing for an examination is the total against the international share, because a question may supply one and ask for the other, and the second figure is also the one that shows how much of the participation came from outside India.