State Exams GK Questions 2026

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 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 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 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 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 Ministry of External Affairs. That pairing is not incidental: the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation programme is a foreign policy instrument, used to offer training and expertise to officials of other developing countries, so a course aimed at human rights institutions abroad naturally runs through External Affairs.

The other ministries listed all have some connection to human rights work within India, which is what makes them usable as distractors, but none of them is named as the partner here. For the examination, treat ITEC and the Ministry of External Affairs as a fixed pair, and note that this was the fifth edition of the programme, held over six days in New Delhi from 14 September 2026.

The answer is fourteen. Two numbers travel together in this item and are easy to swap: thirty-eight senior functionaries attended, and they came from fourteen national human rights institutions. The institutions are the smaller figure, the people the larger one.

The countries represented were Algeria, Chile, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Oman, Samoa, South Africa, Tajikistan and Zimbabwe, which spans Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific. That spread matters for the framing of the programme, which is built on the idea that institutions doing similar work in different legal systems have a good deal to teach each other. Hold the pair as thirty-eight from fourteen and neither figure will slip.

Note the shape of the programme alongside the figures. It was the fifth edition, it ran six days from 14 September 2026 in New Delhi, and the sessions were interactive rather than lecture-led, covering civil and political rights as well as socio-economic and cultural ones.

The answer is Justice V. Ramasubramanian, who chairs the National Human Rights Commission of India and closed the programme. His theme was cooperation between human rights institutions across the Global South, and his argument was that these bodies improve by sharing experience openly, naming the problems they run into and treating their own mistakes as something to learn from.

The other options are drawn from offices that sound plausible for a human rights event but had no role here. The Ministry of External Affairs did partner on the programme, which makes option D the strongest distractor, but the valedictory address came from the Commission's own Chairperson. Present at the session were Joint Secretaries Shri Samir Kumar and Smt. Saidingpuii Chhakchhuak. Remember the Chairperson's name; it is the single most reusable fact here.

The correct answer is Kadha Rasa Sangama - Confluence of Essence of Stories. The Ministry of Culture describes the three-day festival as being held on this theme, bringing together three prominent Kathakali institutions, namely Sadanam Academy, Kerala Kalamandalam and Margi Theatre, each of which presents one distinctive production.

The other three options are plausible-sounding titles that the release does not mention anywhere, and none of them is connected with this festival. The theme is worth memorising alongside the three productions it frames: Mandodari from Sadanam Academy, drawn from the Ramayana; The Old Man and the Sea from Kerala Kalamandalam, adapted from Ernest Hemingway's novel; and Rugmangada Charitham from Margi Theatre, on the devotion of King Rugmangada and his observance of Ekadasi.

The correct answer is 1936. According to the Ministry of Culture, the Kalakshetra Foundation was established in 1936 by Rukmini Devi Arundale, and it has since played a significant role in the preservation, practice and dissemination of Indian classical arts. It is the Foundation that organises the Kathakali Festival, the seventeenth edition of which was inaugurated at the Bharata Kalakshetra Auditorium in Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.

The remaining options give years that the release does not associate with the Foundation at all. Candidates should pair the founding year with the founder's name, because questions on this institution almost always test the two together, and occasionally test the city as well. A useful way to hold it is as a single line: Kalakshetra Foundation, 1936, Rukmini Devi Arundale, Chennai, now functioning under the Ministry of Culture.