Guys, please explain why both are not wrong.
Why I was thinking that both are wrong:
1: Real exchange rate is defined as the ratio of Foreign Price to Domestic Price. High RER should mean that domestic prices are low.
2. Appreciation of currency or Increased Domestic inflation brings down RER. This reduces competitiveness and hence should reduce exports.
Please explain. Really a headache. 
RER =Nominal exchange rate* (price of good in Foreign country/price of good in Domestic country).
That's why its not making sense
@walterwhit3 RER =Nominal exchange rate* (price of good in domestic country/price of good in forign country)so , if RER is high then price of good in domestic country would be more , hence expensiveif RER is low then price of domestic good is less and hence people would prefer buying domestic goods so imports would reduce and exports would rise.
RER =Nominal exchange rate* (price of good in Foreign country/price of good in Domestic country).
That's why its not making sense
@kraantikaari,@mhs11
Quoting Wikipedia:
"More in detail, an appreciation of the currency or a high level of domestic inflation reduces the RER, thus reducing the country's competitiveness and lowering the Current Account (CA). On the other hand, a currency depreciation generates an opposite effect, improving the country's CA.[15]"
@walterwhit3 I think that is wrong.......NER For usa is lets suppose 70rs. and price of good in usa is 1$, india is 35rsso rer=(70rs/1$)*(35rs/1$) with formula in ncert-----units will not get cancel out....hence it must berer=(70rs/1$)*(1$/35rs)----in this case rer comes out to be 2 with units get canceled
Mathematically correct but economically incorrect I guess. Price comparisons have to be made in same denominations. Here is IMF article:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/realex.htm
And even if that were true, I think in this case NER would have to be defined in terms of $ per Rupee. As both can be the definition of NER. I have read both formulas on credible sources.
Generally, no. Contempt powers vest in Courts of Record. By Courts of record, I mean courts where the proceedings are recorded forever. In India, it means the Supreme Court and High Court. On behalf of tribunals/District courts within their jurisdiction, a High Court can generally exercise contempt powers. However, a tribunal does not generally have contempt powers unless the statute establishing it expressly provides for it.
SC has answered this question in 2000. Tribunals have powers of contempt.
The same has been mentioned here.
http://mca.gov.in/SearchableActs/Section425.htm
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tribunals-have-power-to-punish-rules-SC/articleshow/13047982.cms
If UPSC asks this, I think they would be even more clear with the question.
