Current Affairs

DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (12 APRIL 2025)

by | Apr 12, 2025

Only 12% judges disclose assets, Calcutta HC on Hanuman Chalisa event, SC curbs presidential powers on state bills

Asset disclosure row, a denied religious event, and a landmark ruling on presidential powers—here’s what you need to know from the courts.

DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (12 APRIL 2025)

ONLY 12% OF SITTING SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES HAVE DISCLOSED ASSETS

Issue – Justice Yashwant Varma Allegation & Asset Disclosure Controversy

Despite the judiciary’s push since 2009, only 12% of India’s sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges have publicly disclosed their assets. The Supreme Court recently promised to publish asset details online following allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, spotlighting the lack of transparency in India’s higher judiciary.

LEGAL PROVISION 
  • Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1958
  • High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act, 1954
  • No binding provision mandates judges to disclose assets publicly.
  • 1997 Resolution: Voluntary disclosure to respective Chief Justices.
  • 2010 Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Proposed mandatory disclosure; lapsed.
  • 2023 Parliamentary Standing Committee: Recommended mandatory annual returns for judges.
  • 2025 Supreme Court Committee: Approved online name display of judges declaring assets. 

SOURCE: Supreme Court of India

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT REFUSES INTERIM RELIEF FOR HANUMAN CHALISA RECITAL ON RED ROAD

CASE NAME: Hindu Sewa Dal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2025

The Calcutta High Court declined to grant interim permission to Hindu Sewa Dal for a Hanuman Chalisa recital on Red Road, citing the absence of established customary rights. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh stated that first-time religious events in public spaces require legal justification, directing affidavits to be filed by both parties.

LEGAL PROVISION 
  • Article 25 of the Constitution: Guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
  • Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: Regulates use of public land.
  • Judicial Precedent: First-time public religious practices must be judicially established.
  • Police Act, 1861 & CrPC Sections 144, 151: Authorize police to deny permissions for public gatherings for law and order. 

SOURCE: Calcutta High Court

SUPREME COURT CURBS PRESIDENT’S POWERS ON STATE BILLS: NO ABSOLUTE VETO

Case Name: State of Tamil Nadu v s.The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr

The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s decision under Article 201 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It mandated decisions within three months and held that constitutionality must be reviewed by the judiciary, not the executive, curbing potential misuse of presidential powers over State legislation.

LEGAL PROVISION
  • Article 200: Governor’s options upon receiving a State Bill.
  • Article 201: President’s authority on bills reserved by Governors.
  • Proviso to Article 201: President may return non-money bills for reconsideration.
  • Judicial Review: President’s decision under Article 201 is reviewable.
  • Time Bound Decision: President must act within 3 months.
  • No Absolute Veto: President must justify withholding assent.
  • Article 143: Legal issues should be referred to SC, not decided by executive. 

Source: Supreme Court of India

Also Read: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (11 APRIL 2025)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written By Vishakha Khatri

My name is Vishakha Khatri. I am an engineering graduate and a civil service aspirant with a passion for spreading knowledge about Indian polity. I believe that understanding our political system is crucial for every citizen, and I am committed to making this information accessible to everyone in my own easy way. Through my experiences in civil service preparation and my unique perspective as an engineering graduate, I hope to inspire and educate others on the importance of Indian polity.

Related Posts