Skip to main content


Showing posts from December, 2014

Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA)

During sixth BRICS summit held in Fortaleza, Brazil, on 15 July 2014 the participating nations announced signing of the Treaty for the establishment of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$ 100 billion. This arrangement will have a positive precautionary effect, help countries forestall short-term liquidity pressures, promote further BRICS cooperation, strengthen the global financial safety net and complement existing international arrangements. The Agreement is a framework for the provision of liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance of payments pressures. It would have an initial pool of $100 billion, with China contributing $41 billion .India, Brazil and Russia will have equal contribution of $18 billion, and South Africa contributing the remaining $5 billion. The CRA will act as Banker of last resort for BRICS nations. where by India, Brazil and Russia can draw an amount equivalent to their sha

New Development Bank (NDB)

During sixth BRICS summit held in Fortaleza, Brazil, on 15 July 2014 the participating nations announced signing of the Agreement establishing the New Development Bank (NDB), with the purpose of mobilizing resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging and developing economies. The Bank will have an initial authorized capital of US$ 100 billion. The initial subscribed capital will be of US$ 50 billion, equally shared among founding members. Membership of the Bank will be open to members of the United Nations, who will be able to subscribe to the shares of the Bank.Thus NDB will support other developing countries as well BRICS members’ share in the total paid up capital of the Bank (also their voting share) cannot be less 55%, thus ensuring that the founding members retain control over the NDB at all times. The first chair of the Board of Governors shall be from Russia. The first chair of the Board of Directors shall be from Brazil.

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Sexual Harassment at workplace is a violation of women’s right to gender equality, life and liberty. It creates an insecure and hostile work environment, which discourages women’s participation in work, thereby adversely affecting their economic empowerment and the goal of inclusive growth. However, there was no domestic law to address this issue except a few provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Supreme Court Guidelines in the case of Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan. The increasing work participation rate of women has made it imperative that a comprehensive legislation focusing on prevention of sexual harassment as well as providing a redressal mechanism be enacted.In this light this act was enacted in April,2013 The salient features of the Act are as follows: (i) It defines “sexual harassment at the workplace” in a comprehensive manner, in keeping with the definition laid down in the Vishaka judgment, and broadening it further to cover circumstances of implied or ex

Supreme Court Judgement (Lalita Kumari case) on registration of FIR

The constitution bench of supreme court in its recent judgement in Lalita Kumari vs State of UP case dealt in details about legal status of registration of FIR by police. I will here by discuss the summary of the judgement. Case :  The writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, was filed by one Lalita Kumari (minor) through her father, viz., Shri Bhola Kamat for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or direction(s) of like nature against the respondents herein for the protection of his minor daughter who has been kidnapped. The grievance in the said writ petition is that on 11.05.2008, a written report was submitted by the petitioner before the officer in-charge of the police station concerned who did not take any action on the same. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, an FIR was registered. According to the petitioner, even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or for the recovery of the minor 3 girl child. Since t