QUIZ – 2017: Insights Current Affairs Quiz, 13 DECEMBER 2017

Solution: c.

Under bail-in, the Resolution Corporation can internally restructure the firm’s debt by: (i) cancelling liabilities that the firm owes to its creditors (statement 1), or (ii) converting its liabilities into any other instrument (e.g., converting debt into equity; statement 2), among others.

Bail-in may be used in cases where it is necessary to continue the services of the firm, but the option of selling it is not feasible. This method allows for losses to be absorbed and consequently enables the firm to carry on business for a reasonable time period while maintaining market confidence.3  The Bill allows the Resolution Corporation to either resolve a firm by only using bail-in, or use bail-in as part of a larger resolution scheme in combination with other resolution methods like a merger or acquisition.

http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?p=3932;

Improvisation: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/perils-of-going-cashless/article21535422.ece;

Solution: d.

As per Section 23 of the RTI Act, “No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.”

The “Registry filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court in 2011, prolonging the matter. In essence, the Registry turned Mr. Misra’s request into an RTI v. Rules contest, as it has done for others too… Justice S. Muralidhar of the High Court stayed Mr. Gandhi’s decision immediately without addressing Section 23 of the RTI Act, which forbids courts from entertaining ‘any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act’. The High Court did not justify how its writ jurisdiction applies to an appeal against a CIC order…”

http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm;

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece;

—

Solution: c.

The Chief Information Commissioner had in 2011 held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Supreme Court Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone. The Commissioner noted that the Rules undermined the RTI in four key ways. Unlike the RTI Act, the Rules do not provide for:

• a time frame for furnishing information;
• an appeal mechanism, and
• penalties for delays or wrongful refusal of information.
• Finally, the Rules also make disclosures to citizens contingent upon “good cause shown”.

In sum, the Rules allowed the Registry to provide information at its unquestionable discretion, violating the text and spirit of the RTI. Consequently, the Commissioner  held that the Supreme Court Rules are inconsistent with the RTI Act, and that the Registry must respond to applications within the RTI framework alone.

The SC Registry filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court in 2011, prolonging the matter. Six years on, recently, the court overturned the Commissioner’s 2011 order. Therefore, the SC Administrative rules presently have primacy over the RTI Act.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/information-at-the-courts-discretion/article21537137.ece

Solution: a.

The Juno spacecraft, which successfully entered the orbit of Jupiter on July 4, 2016, will for the first time peer below the dense cover of clouds to answer questions about the gas giant and the origins of our solar system.

Juno’s primary goal is to reveal the story of Jupiter’s formation and evolution. Using long-proven technologies on a spinning spacecraft placed in an elliptical polar orbit, Juno will observe Jupiter’s gravity and magnetic fields, atmospheric dynamics and composition, and evolution.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/juno/;

Q5, https://www.insightsonindia.com/2017/10/30/upsc-civil-services-mains-exam-2017-general-studies-paper-1-question-paper/;

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/jupiters-great-red-spot-one-and-a-half-earths-wide-nasa/article21500000.ece

Solution: c.

Abhiram Singh vs. C D Commachen case (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Seeking-votes-on-religious-basis-a-corrupt-act-SC/article16977220.ece): The Supreme Court recently, in a majority judgment of 4:3, held that an appeal for votes during elections on the basis of religion, caste, race, community or language, even that of the electorate, will amount to a ‘corrupt practice’ and call for disqualification of the candidate.. The court was interpreting the pronoun ‘his’ used in Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act.

Article 29 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1888152/): Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

• The article grants protection to both religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities. However, the Supreme Court (has) held that the scope of this article is not necessarily restricted to minorities only, as it is commonly assumed to be. This is because of the use of words ‘section of citizens’ in the Article that include minorities as well as majority.
• The Supreme Court also held that the right to conserve the language includes the right to agitate for the protection of the language. Hence, the political speeches or promises made for the conservation of the language of a section  of  the  citizens  does  not  amount  to  corrupt  practice  under the Representation  of the People Act, 1951.

Fundamental Rights, Indian Polity by M Laxmikanth;

Improvisation (reference to cultural right guaranteed under Article 29): http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jallikattu-issue-to-go-to-constitution-bench/article21512807.ece;

—