MICS CURRENT AFFAIRS 22nd JAN 2018

1 . India to become fastest growing large economy in 2018: Report

India will overtake China to be the fastest growing large economy in 2018 and the country’s equity market will become the fifth largest in the world, says a report.

According to a Sanctum Wealth Management report, when the rest of the world offers low growth and insufficient structural change, India, by contrast, is seen as a reforming economy with the prospect of strong long-term growth.

At a time when developed economies are cheering 2-3 per cent growth, India is focused on breaching 7.5 per cent.

The report that identifies various big-picture trends at play this year in the domestic and global economy, noted that Aadhaar, Jan Dhan, Demonetisation, GST, are working to create a new inclusive infrastructure in India.

 

2 .Election  Commission  panel  cites  SC  rulings  on  office  of profit

The Election  Commission  panel has cited several rulings of the Supreme Court in its recommendation to the President that the 20 legislators of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) be disqualified for holding office of profit.

1 . Maulana Abdul Shakur vs Rikhab Chand (1958)

The recommendation said the Supreme Court in Maulana Abdul Shakur vs Rikhab Chand (1958) had defined the concept of office of profit under the government. The court said the government’s power to appoint a person to an office, or to keep him in that office, or revoke his appointment at its discretion, and payment from government revenues were important factors in determining if one held an office of profit. Payment from a source other than government revenue was not the decisive factor.

2 . Guru Gobinda Basu vs Sankari Prasad Ghosal (1964)

In Guru Gobinda Basu vs Sankari Prasad Ghosal (1964), the court said: “But all these factors need not coexist. Mere absence of one of the factors may not negate the overall test. The decisive test for determining whether a person holds any office of profit under the government, the Constitution Bench holds, is the test of appointment; stress on other tests will depend on the facts of each case.”

The court said the final query was, whether, on account of holding of such office, would the government be in a position to influence him so as to interfere with his independence in functioning as an MLA and/or would his holding of the two offices involve a conflict of interest.

3 . Pradyut Bordoloi vs Swapan Roy (2001)

In Pradyut Bordoloi vs Swapan Roy (2001), the Supreme Court outlined the following questions for the test: whether the government makes the appointment; whether the government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder; whether the government pays the remuneration; what are the functions of the holder; does he perform them for the government; and does the government exercise any control over the performance of those functions?

Election  Commission’s stand 

Citing the judgments, the EC said the AAP MLAs were appointed Parliamentary Secretaries by the Delhi government, which exercised control over them. The government had the power to remove them, their work was allocated by Ministers concerned as delegated authority and expenses of their office were paid from government revenues. The Commission concluded that there could be “no dispute that the office of Parliamentary Secretary was an office under the government.”

 

3 . SC  to  bring  transparency  in  allocation  of  sensitive  PILs  to judges

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has examined suggestions from stakeholders to bring transparency in allocation of sensitive PILs to judges and is likely to bring in the public domain soon the system he is going to adopt for it .

Justice Misra held deliberations with fellow judges and also took into account the suggestions put forth by the Supreme Court Bar Association, and a clear-cut roster system is likely to be followed in the Supreme Court for the allocation of cases.

The court registry is very likely to upload on its website the decision of the CJI on allocation of matters. The system will be brought in the public domain as to who will hear what categories of cases.