Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021

kochikaamesaid

@Param_Roy Is it in context of some question or something you read somewhere?

Interest rates impact capital flows. When interest rates are high in domestic country, foreign investors tend to bring investments as higher interest rates translate to higher returns. Since Foreign currency is coming into the country, Exchange rate appreciates. 

Coming to exports, exchange rate appreciation would end up negatively impacting exports of the country.

Thank you Dost

Yeah there have been questions and this is basics and have been consistently confusing me.

Seems resolved now

My assumption is, it may be due to the fact that there may be companies registered under 1956 already.@Patootie can explain better 

What is Summer MaximumandWinter Maximum? (Climate chapters) 

It is mentioned everywhere in GC Leong ?

If changes to be notified are such that amendments would amount to change of the identity of the parent act itself, it is best practice to introduce a new law. It's one of the best practices in policymaking. Both these acts sought to introduce radical changes. Eg: CoPrA, 2019 introduced even the definition of consumer, the entity for which the act exists!

Secondly, sometimes the reason is political too. The ruling party intends to cast a legacy of good governance through new acts.
There are no rules as such.

Isn't statement 3 wrong? 

No. Do reverse engineering!

If a law could be struck down for being violative of Preamble that would make Preamble justiciable in nature. What it means is Preamble would be put on the same pedestal as fundamental rights!

That is certainly not the case. Preamble is not justiciable/enforceable.

It's correct. Nowhere it has been mentioned that violation of the preamble will make the law void unlike article 13 where it has been clearly stated out (defining the meaning of "law") that any law in derogation of FR will be considered as void. However, it won't permanently die(Doctrine of eclipse)but will be inactive. Hope you get it. 

No, governor has no discretionary powers under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. This matter was raised years back when a PIL was filed by Chattisgarh. The last opinion of the government recorded on this matter is that governor has to act on aid and advise of CoM. 

That is one of the reasons. However, even those companies are now almost entirely regulated by the new Act.An amendment is done for minor changes within the existing framework while a new act is enacted for a complete unshackling and reassembly/introduction of a new framework.If you look at the two acts you have mentioned, there has been a complete overhaul of the regulatory ecosystem itself.

The primary reason a new act was introduced and the old one repealed was that these old acts (CA 1956 and CPA 1986) had become anachronistic and extremely out of sync with the present times. A 1956 legislation in the digital era, you can imagine how that would've been.

Companies Act, 2013 completely changed the entire regulatory ecosystem when it came to companies. Everything beginning from incorporation to dissolution was changed.The NCLTwas brought in to stop cloggingup of the High Courts (liquidation proceedings/ oppression-mismanagement proceeding against majority shareholders) under the previous regime. Major changes as relating toprivate placement, related party transactions etc. were brought in. The regulatory ecosystem and compliance mechanism when it came tolisting of shares, borrowing, creation of security, registration of chargewas simplified to a large extent. Entirely new concepts likeOne person company, Differential shareholder litigation etcwere brought in. It was truly a transformative change in the company law ecosystem. If you had amended the previous act to bring these changes, the amended act would have little to no resemblance to the original. 

To a lesser extent, the same is the case with the CPA, 1986. You had theeconomy opening up post 1991 reforms, rise of e-commerce, tech platforms; you had a proliferation of advertising services.Further, under the old act, from experience, I can tell you that the DCDRF or the SCDRC, or NCDRC were not really working hard to protect consumers.On the contrary, they were hardly working. Adjournments and inordinate delays were a matter of course. In fact, to a large extent, the fora would assemble solely to give new dates for cases without even a preliminary hearing. So, there was a need for greater accountability and a completely new regulatory ecosystem. Hence, the new act.@AlexanderSupertramp 

Is statement C correct? 

I doubt it to be wrong but the answerkey mentions otherwise. :(

Same doubt. Someone please clarify. Is there a ban on voting for 6 years?

RPA Act, 1951 does not talk about the right to vote of an MP who is disqualified. Here, the explicit mention is missing. So, whatever is applicable for a lay citizen, is applicable for the MPs as well.

That being said, it categorically states thatprisoners are not allowed to vote. Prisoners, according to the act, include both the undertrials and the convicted persons. 

In another provision,the act allows those who are under preventive detention to vote.

In another provision, you'll find the mention thatthose who have been convicted for an offence that attracts imprisonment of 2 years or less, are eligible to contest elections.Reading this provision with aforementioned one, means that such a person will be eligible to contest, but cannot vote in the election! A dichotomous position! Yes, it exists and must be sorted out.

Summarily put, if someone is in prison (except preventive detention cases), he's not allowed to vote!

 However, it must be noted that the provision is not related to the disqualification of MP per se, but in general, applicable for all citizens. So, definitely applicable on the MPs.

This question should have been framed properly!

It is true.

The RPA Act, 1951 does mention this provision.See Chapter IV of the RPA, 1951