31 March 2025 UPSC Current Affairs - Daily News Headline

On March 31, 2025, India made headlines again across various fronts. The government launched a nationwide campaign to promote digital health records, aiming to make medical histories accessible with just a few clicks. In education, CBSE announced a major change in the exam pattern for Classes 10 and 12, shifting focus more towards application-based questions. The stock market stayed upbeat as the Sensex continued to climb, thanks to positive global cues. In international news, India and France signed a deal to collaborate on clean energy projects, especially in solar and hydrogen. Back home, heavy unseasonal rains in parts of Maharashtra raised concerns for the standing wheat crop, with state officials rushing to assess damage.

Awareness regarding daily UPSC current affairs is crucial for cracking the UPSC prelims, excelling in UPSC mains. It helps perform well in the UPSC personality test, thus becoming an informed and effective UPSC civil servant.

Below are the headlines of the day taken from The Hindu, Indian Express, Press Information Bureau & All India Radio as required for UPSC preparation:

Judicial Misconduct and In-House Inquiry

Source: The Hindu 

Syllabus: GS Paper 2

IN NEWS :

• The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has formed an in-house inquiry committee to investigate allegations of misconduct against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court.
• The inquiry follows the discovery of large amounts of burnt currency notes at his residence during a fire-control operation on March 14, 2025.
• Judicial work has been withdrawn from Justice Varma, and he has been transferred back to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court collegium.

What is the Current Issue?

• Incident: A fire broke out at Justice Yashwant Varma ’ s residence on March 14, 2025. 
• Discovery: Firefighters found large piles of burnt currency notes inside a storeroom at his house. 
• Preliminary Inquiry: The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court conducted a preliminary probe and recommended a deeper investigation. 
• Response from Justice Varma: He denied any knowledge of the cash and claimed that neither he nor his family members had placed it in the storeroom. 
• Further Action: The CJI formed a three-member committee to conduct a detailed in-house inquiry as per the Supreme Court’ s procedure.

How is an In-House Inquiry Conducted?

Background: The Supreme Court established an in-house inquiry mechanism in 1999 to investigate allegations of misconduct against higher judiciary judges. It was made public in 2014. 

Process: 

• A complaint is received against a High Court judge. 
• The CJI determines if it is frivolous or serious.
•  If serious, the judge ' s response and comments from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court are considered. 
• The CJI forms a three-member committee, typically including: 

• Two Chief Justices from other High Courts.
• One senior High Court judge .

• The committee conducts an inquiry and submits its findings: 

• If not serious, the judge is cautioned. 
• If serious, the judge is asked to resign.
• If the High court judge is unwilling to resign, the President and the Prime Minister will be informed of the findings for Parliament to initiate action for removal as per provisions of the Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution. 

• For Chief Justices of High Courts: Inquiry is conducted by a Supreme Court judge along with two other High Court Chief Justices. For Supreme Court judges: Inquiry is conducted by a three-judge committee from the Supreme Court. 

What Reforms are Required?

• More Transparency in In-House Inquiries: 

• Currently, inquiry details are confidential. 
• A summary of findings should be made public to maintain trust in the judiciary. 

• Criminal Action Against Guilty Judges: 

• No judge has been criminally prosecuted despite being found guilty in past inquiries.
•  Legal provisions should ensure criminal liability where necessary. 

• Creation of an Independent Investigative Body: 

• The U.K. has the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for handling judicial misconduct cases. 
• India could set up a similar autonomous body under the CJI to investigate and prosecute guilty judges. 

• Revisiting the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): 

• The NJAC was struck down in 2015 for violating the independence of the judiciary. However, the collegium system lacks accountability. 
• A reformed NJAC could improve transparency in judicial appointments while maintaining judicial independence.

Read article on Collegium System

Abolition of ‘Google Tax’

Source: The Hindu

Syllabus: GS Paper 3

In News:

• The Indian government has proposed removing the 6% equalisation levy (EL) on online advertisements from April 1, 2025, as part of amendments to the Finance Bill, 2025. 
• The decision comes amid pressure from the United States, which has been opposing India’s digital taxation policies. 
• The move is seen as an attempt to ease trade tensions and facilitate discussions on a potential India-US trade deal. 

What is Google Tax?

• The Google Tax is a colloquial term used for the equalisation levy imposed on foreign tech companies for providing digital services in India. 
• It was introduced in 2016 to ensure tax parity between resident and nonresident digital service providers. 
• Big technology companies like Google, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, and Apple were required to withhold and remit the tax on digital advertising payments.

Background of Google Tax:

• 2016: India introduced a 6% equalisation levy on payments exceeding ₹1 lakh per year made to non-resident service providers for online ads. 
• 2020: India expanded the equalisation levy by introducing a 2% tax on ecommerce transactions, targeting companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Apple ’ s App Store. 
• 2021: The United States launched an investigation into India's digital taxes, calling them "discriminatory and unreasonable." 
• 2024: India removed the 2% levy on e-commerce platforms amid US pressure, but the 6% levy on digital ads continued. 
• 2025: The Indian government has now proposed removing the 6% levy as well to resolve trade disputes with the US.

What is Equalisation Levy?

• Equalisation levy (EL) is a direct tax imposed on foreign digital service providers to ensure they contribute fairly to India ' s tax system. 
• It applies to: Online advertising and digital marketing services (6%) – Introduced in 2016. E-commerce services (2%) – Introduced in 2020 (now repealed). 

Why was Equalisation Levy Imposed?

• Taxing Digital Giants: Tech giants like Google, Meta, Amazon, etc., were earning significant revenue from Indian users but not paying direct taxes as they had no physical presence. 
• Addressing Tax Avoidance: Many digital companies routed revenues through tax-friendly jurisdictions to avoid Indian taxes. 
• Level Playing Field: It aimed to equalize the tax burden between Indian and foreign companies, ensuring fair competition. Increase Tax Revenue: With the growth of digital services, the Indian government sought new revenue sources.

Reason for it’s Removal:

• US Pressure and Trade Relations: 

• The US opposed India ’ s digital tax, arguing it discriminated against American companies. In 2021, India, the US, and OECD/G20 members agreed to find a global solution to digital taxation. 
• India removed the 2% e-commerce levy in 2024, and is now removing the 6% levy to align with global tax reforms. 

• OECD’ s Global Tax Agreement: 

• India is a part of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, which proposes a two-pillar global tax system to regulate digital economy taxation. 
• A unified international tax framework is being developed, making unilateral taxes like India ’ s equalisation levy unnecessary.

• Avoiding US Tariff Retaliation: 

• The US threatened retaliatory tariffs against India if the digital tax was not removed. 
• To prevent trade disputes and maintain diplomatic relations, India has decided to withdraw the levy. 

• Simplification of Taxation: 

• Equalisation levy was considered a temporary solution until a global consensus on digital taxation was reached. 
• The removal of the tax provides certainty for digital companies and streamlines tax regulations.