Daily Briefing Current Affairs

GS-2RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND STATE SURVEILLANCE

Puttaswamy Asked for a Law First. Ikshana, AjnaLens and Abhigyan Never Got One.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the bench that biometric data collected during the protests was hosted by private companies without consent, in what the petition calls a "complete legal vacuum." The plea argues this violates the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the proportionality doctrine from K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).

Sub TopicTHE LEGALITY PRONG OF THE PUTTASWAMY PROPORTIONALITY TESTSourceSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UPSC Relevance8/10
Time to Read3 min read
Total Views39,441
Read Analysis
GS-2FISCAL FEDERALISM AND MINERAL TAXATION

The Court Gave States a Power. Parliament Just Wrote Around It.

The Lok Sabha passed the Bill on August 12 and the Rajya Sabha on August 13, rejecting Opposition demands to refer it to a Standing Committee. Union Mines Minister G. Kishan Reddy said the law does not curtail state autonomy but ensures uniform mineral rates, while Opposition MPs argued it undermines fiscal federalism and revenue-sharing.

Sub TopicLEGISLATIVE OVERRIDE OF JUDICIAL FISCAL ALLOCATIONSourcePIB
UPSC Relevance8/10
Time to Read3 min read
Total Views23,893
Read Analysis
GS-2ARREST SAFEGUARDS AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

A Phone Call to Your Relative Doesn't Count: What Vihaan Kumar Actually Changed

The ruling reinforces safeguards against arbitrary arrest at a time when India's criminal procedure has transitioned from the CrPC to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It builds on the Arnesh Kumar (2014) guidelines against routine arrests and reaffirms the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14, 19 and 21 first articulated in Maneka Gandhi (1978).

Sub TopicARTICLE 22(1) AND THE COMMUNICATION-OF-GROUNDS REQUIREMENTSourceSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UPSC Relevance8/10
Time to Read3 min read
Total Views44,875
Read Analysis
GS-2LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES VS FREE SPEECH

The Seven-Word Clause That Let a Legislature Order Its Own Critics Arrested

A three-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant fixed the October 6 hearing date. The case has already been referred upward twice - from a division bench in 2003 to a five-judge bench and from that five-judge bench in 2004 to the present seven-judge bench - because of directly conflicting Supreme Court precedent from 1959 and 1964 on the same question.

Sub TopicARTICLE 194(3) AND THE CODIFICATION GAPSourceSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UPSC Relevance8/10
Time to Read3 min read
Total Views31,764
Read Analysis