The Chhattisgarh

Tag: Supreme court

  • NEET-UG Row: BJP, Opposition Spar After SC Verdict; NTA Faces Heat |

    The Supreme Court’s verdict about the NEET-UG paper leak has put an end to the controversy officially but the opposition in not ready to accept the verdict in its current form. The opposition said that the National Testing Agency needs to be revamped as it is not capable of conducting national-level exams in the current format. The Supreme Court, in its verdict yesterday, concluded that the paper leak took place at local level in Bihar while maintaining absence of any systemic breach. The apext court rejected the demand for holding a re-examination for over 24 lakhs students who took the NEET-UG 2024 exam.

    What Opposition Said

    Former Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said that the National Testing Agency (NTA) needs to be completely revamped, adding that the government cannot hold an All-India exam of this magnitude under the present system. “The Supreme Court has asked the IIT Delhi to look into the matter as to how to deal with these issues (paper leaks)….Why in every examination during this government there are leaks in every exam? The question is who is involved and for whose benefit are the leaks happening? Who are the people without merit who got jobs? The National Testing Agency(NTA) needs to be completely revamped. You cannot hold an all-India exam of this magnitude under a present NTA system,” Sibal said.

    He said, “The government is for everyone and it should think for every section of our youth who is sitting for this exam.”

    Shiv Sena-UBT Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut said, “Supreme Court should know what is going on in the country. Supreme Court was one last ray of hope. If that ray too is not showing us any direction, then where will we go? Is there any pressure on the government?”

    VCK MP Thol. Thirumavalavan termed the verdict shocking. “Supreme Court direction is not in favour of the students who are affected by this NEET scam…The victims have to go for appeal. That is the only solution,” he said.

    What Government Said

    BJP leader and Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said that the government is committed towards a ‘zero-error’ exam. Dharmendra Pradhan said, “For us, zero tolerance of any kind of breach is our priority when it comes to exams for students, be it for higher education or jobs. So, the Modi government has brought into effect a strict law like the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act….Presenting our side before the Supreme Court, we have promised that our government is committed to having a transparent, tamper-free and zero-error examination system.”

    Dharmendra Pradhan also announced a high-level committee for a total overhaul of the National Testing Agency (NTA). “Taking this commitment forward, we announced a high-level committee for a complete revamp of the NTA. That committee is working with dedication…The committee has collected expert opinions and studied various models…They will submit a report soon,” he said.

  • NEET UG 2024 Hearing: Supreme Court Assess Re-Exam Pleas – 10 Points |

    The Supreme Court began hearing a batch of petitions alleging paper leakage and malpractices in the NEET-UG 2024 exam, held on May 5 this year. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra will hear the case on July 18.
    On July 15, the apex court adjourned the hearing for Thursday to enable the petitioners to file their responses to the affidavits filed by the Centre and the National Testing Agency (NTA).

    It was noted in the order that some of the parties in the case haven’t received the affidavits filed by the Centre and NTA and they need to prepare their responses before arguments.
    On July 11, the Central government filed an affidavit in the case denying any mass malpractice in the NEET-UG 2024 exam.
    In the affidavit, the Centre said the data analytics done by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras shows that there is neither any indication of mass malpractice nor a localised set of candidates being benefitted leading to abnormal scores.
    It also said that counselling will be conducted in four rounds starting from the third week of July.
    “For any candidate, if it is found that he/she has been the beneficiary of any malpractice, the candidature of such person would be cancelled at any stage during the counselling process or even afterwards,” the affidavit stated.
    The NTA in its affidavit had also said that the video showing a photo of the NEET-UG exam paper leaked on Telegram on May 4 was fake. “The timestamp was manipulated to create a false impression of an early leak,” it had added.
    It said that NTA has carried out an analysis of distribution of marks of candidates in NEET-UG 2024 at the National, State and City levels and also Centre level. “This analysis indicates that the distribution of marks is quite normal and there seems to be no extraneous factor, which would influence the distribution of marks,” it had submitted.
    The apex court has seized a batch of pleas seeking direction to recall NEET-UG 2024 results and to conduct the examination afresh, alleging paper leakage and malpractices in the test held.
    Aspirants had approached the top court and raised the issue of leakage of question paper, awarding compensatory marks and anomaly in question of NEET-UG.
    NEET-UG examination, conducted by NTA, is the pathway for admissions into MBBS, BDS and AYUSH and other related courses in government and private institutions across the country.
    The NEET-UG, 2024 was held across 4,750 centres on May 5 and around 24 lakh candidates appeared for the exam. 

  • Can Divorced Muslim Women Seek Alimony Under CrPC Instead Of Personal Law? Supreme Court Says This |

    Muslim marriages are mostly governed by Personal Laws. Their divorce was also governed using the law until the introduction of the Triple Talaq Act which criminalised the instant divorce. Now, a case has come to light where a Muslim woman approached the court seeking alimony under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court today ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek alimony from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This significant judgment was delivered by a bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih, who dismissed a petition by a Muslim man challenging the order to pay maintenance to his divorced wife under the CrPC.

    The bench clarified that the law for seeking maintenance applies to all married women, regardless of their religion. Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered separate, but concurrent, judgments to this effect.

    “We are hereby dismissing the criminal appeal with the major conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all woman and not just married woman,” reported Bar and Bench quoting Justice Nagarathna.

    The petition before the Supreme Court arose from a grievance regarding a maintenance claim filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by a Muslim woman, who was the petitioner’s wife before their divorce. 

    The issue originated from a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the couple had divorced under Muslim personal law in 2017.

    The High Court subsequently modified the maintenance amount to Rs 10,000 per month and instructed the Family Court to resolve the case within six months. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

  • SC To Hear Kejriwal’s Plea Challenging Interim Stay On Bail In Money Laundering Case Today |

    The Supreme Court is set to hear Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition on Monday challenging the Delhi High Court’s interim stay on his release on bail in a money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scamccording to the additional causelist published on the Supreme Court’s website, a vacation bench consisting of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti will hear the case this afternoon. Previously, Kejriwal’s legal team requested an urgent hearing on his petition by the Supreme Court.

    On June 21, the Delhi High Court issued an interim judgement staying the release of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo in response to the Enforcement Directorate’s petition contesting the trial court’s bail order.

    The Delhi High Court stayed the release of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo on June 21 in an interim ruling based on the Enforcement Directorate’s petition contesting the trial court’s bail order. A vacation bench of Justices Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ravinder Dudeja of the High Court ordered that CM Kejriwal’s discharge be stayed till the petition was heard in its entirety.

    Later that day, the Delhi High Court reserved its decision in the petition, stating that it will issue it within two to three days. Following the order’s announcement, the ED requested a 48-hour postponement in signing the bail bond from the trial court on Thursday. However, the trial court vehemently denied the ED’s

  • ‘Even If 0.001% Negligence…’: Supreme Court Slams Exam Body NTA Over NEET Row |

    NEET 2024 Exam Result Row Latest News: With the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination facing all-around criticism, the Supreme Court has slammed the National Testing Agency for the alleged irregularities and negligence in conducting the prestigious national exam for medical college aspirants. “Even if there’s 0.001% negligence on anyone’s part, it should be thoroughly dealt with,” said the top Court while hearing the petitions filed by aspirants challenging the exam result.

    The results for the medical entrance examination, taken by 2.4 million students on May 5, were announced on June 4. Allegations of an exam paper leak soon emerged, with 67 students reportedly achieving perfect scores of 720/720.

    The next hearing in the case is scheduled for July 8. The top court emphasized the importance of fairness in the examination process, stating, “As an agency conducting the examination, you must act fairly. If there is a mistake, acknowledge it and outline the corrective action. This approach inspires confidence in your performance.”

    Grace marks were allegedly given to compensate for lost time at the exam centres. Numerous student organizations have protested against the alleged NEET irregularities, including incidents of incorrect question papers being distributed, Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets being damaged, and delays in sheet distribution.

    Last week, the National Testing Agency (NTA) informed the Supreme Court that the grace marks awarded to 1,563 candidates in the NEET-UG exam would be revoked, offering these candidates the opportunity to retake the exam on June 23. The results of the re-test are expected to be released before June 30.

    Candidates who opt not to retake the exam will have their original scores reinstated, minus the extra marks.

    Bihar police have arrested 13 people in connection with an alleged NEET paper -leak while the Gujarat Police have arrested some persons accused of compromising an entire exam centre in Bharuch.

  • Supreme Court To Pass Interim Order On Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail On Friday In Excise Policy Case | – Arvind Kejriwal’s Interim Bail Updates

    By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device and the processing of information obtained via those cookies (including about your preferences, device and online activity) by us and our commercial partners to enhance site navigation, personalise ads, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. More information can be found in our Cookies and Privacy Policy. You can amend your cookie settings to reject non-essential cookies by clicking Cookie Settings below.

    Accept All Cookies

    Manage Consent Preferences

  • ‘Contradicting Yourself’: Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks On Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea Against Arrest |

    The Supreme Court of India yesterday heard Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest. While the CM’s counsel contended that his arrest was illegal and was done merely based on suspicion, the apex court made some strong remarks. Appearing for Kejriwal, senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi said that a person can be arrested only on evidence of guilt. Referring to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Singhvi contended that the investigating agency had not recorded the statement of the Delhi Chief Minister, said reports.

    However, the top court reacted sharply to this saying that the petitioner is contradicting his own statement. “Are you not contradicting yourself by saying that his statements under Section 50 of the PMLA were not recorded?” said the court adding that first the CM did not appear on summons for recording of statements under Section 50 and now saying it was not recorded. Arvind Kejriwal had refused to appear before the Enforcement Directorate despite the probe agency issuing nine summons to him. 

    Kejriwal has moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi liquor policy case. Kejriwal contended that his arrest was illegal, politically motivated and aimed at toppling the Delhi government. 

    According to reports, the top court noted that the petitioner cannot take the defence that his statement was not recorded because he did not go for it when summoned. To this, Singhvi responded, “Non-recording of Section 50 statements is not a defence to arrest me for reasons of believing there is guilt…The ED came to my house to arrest me. Then why can’t ED record my statement under Section 50 at my house?” he added.

    The Enforcement Directorate has submitted before the court that Kejriwal was avoiding interrogation while recording his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA. The ED also accused the CM of being evasive and uncooperative. 

    The top court also asked why Kejriwal did not file a plea for bail in the trial court, Singhvi told the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that they have approached the Supreme Court as it has ‘wider jurisdiction’.

    Arvind Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 and is currently lodged in Tihar jail. The hearing in the case will continue today.

  • ‘No Proof That AAP Received Kickbacks’: Arvind Kejriwal Responds To ED’s Allegations In Delhi Liquor Policy Case |

    NEW DELHI: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday filed his response to the Enforcement Directorate’s affidavit in the Supreme Court, saying that there is no proof that AAP received funds or advanced kickbacks in connection with the ongoing probe into the liquor policy case. In his reply, the AAP chief stated that the mode, manner, and timing of his arrest just before when the schedule of the Lok Sabha elections 2024 was announced and the Model Code of Conduct had come into force speaks volumes about the arbitrariness of the ED.

    The jailed Delhi Chief Minister further claimed that there exists no proof or material demonstrating that the AAP received funds or advanced kickbacks from the South group, let alone utilising them in the Goa election campaign. 

    “Not a single rupee was traced back to the AAP, and the allegations put forth in this regard are devoid of any tangible evidence, rendering them vague, baseless without any corroboration,” Arvind Kejriwal said in his affidavit.

     

    Delhi Liquor policy case: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal files his response on the ED’s affidavit in the Supreme Court, and says that the mode, manner, and timing of his arrest just before when the schedule of the Lok Sabha elections had been announced and the Model Code of…
    — ANI (@ANI) April 27, 2024

     

    Kejriwal also accused the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of acting in a “most highhanded manner” in a money-laundering case stemming from the alleged excise policy scam. In a rejoinder to the ED’s reply affidavit filed on his petition challenging his arrest in the case, Kejriwal said he has always cooperated with the investigation.

    The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor said the ED, in its reply affidavit filed in the apex court, has said that one of the reasons which necessitated his arrest was that he did not remain present before the investigating officer (IO) despite being summoned nine times.

    Kejriwal said the ED has said in its reply that in such a case, the IO was justified in forming an opinion that custodial interrogation would lead to “a qualitatively more elicitation orientated” questioning of the accused.

    “The aforementioned tenor, text and contents of the reply leave no manner of doubt that the ED has acted in a most highhanded manner in a gross affront to the due process of law,” he said.

    Kejriwal further claimed that a cumulative reading of the ED’s stand in its reply would expose the “bogey and blatant falsehood” in the conduct of its proceedings. The AAP supremo said the record would reveal that each and every summons issued to him was duly responded to while seeking vital details and information, which under no circumstances can be claimed to be privileged or confidential by the ED.

    Kejriwal claimed that the ED has never spelt out the alleged non-cooperation by him. “What was the requirement in not calling the petitioner (Kejriwal) either through an authorised agent or seeking information or documents from him in writing or through a virtual mode and insisting on his presence physically in person, is not forthcoming,” he said.

    Kejriwal maintained that his plea deserves to be allowed and he is entitled to be released forthwith.

  • Supreme Court To Pronounce Verdict On Pleas Seeking Mandatory EVM-VVPAT Cross-Verification Today |

    In a significant development, the Supreme Court is set to rule on a series of petitions requesting complete cross-verification of votes cast using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). A bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta is expected to deliver the verdict.

    The Supreme Court previously stated that it cannot “control the elections” or issue orders based solely on concerns raised about the efficacy of EVMs. The court had reserved judgement on the petitions, which also claimed that polling devices could be manipulated to influence results.

    The court also clarified that it cannot change the minds of those who question the benefits of polling machines and advocate for a return to ballot papers. The bench also considered the responses to questions it posed to the Election Commission about the operation of EVMs, such as whether the microcontrollers in them are programmable.

    Last week, the bench reserved its decision on a number of public interest litigations (PILs) in the case, noting that official acts are normally presumed to be valid under the Indian Evidence Act, and that nothing done by the Election Commission can be questioned.

    One of the petitioners, the NGO ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’, has requested that the poll panel reverse its 2017 decision to replace the transparent glass on VVPAT machines with an opaque one. The petitioners have also asked the court to restore the old ballot paper system.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre’s second highest law officer, criticised the petitioners for filing PILs on the eve of elections, claiming that a voter’s democratic choice is being turned into a joke. He added that the Supreme Court had already resolved the issue by dismissing previous petitions seeking similar relief.

    In April 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to increase the number of VVPAT slips from one to five per Assembly constituency. It had issued guidelines for the mandatory verification of VVPAT slips from five randomly selected polling stations after the final round of counting votes recorded in EVMs.

    A VVPAT is regarded as an independent verification system for voting machines, allowing voters to confirm that they have correctly cast their votes. The seven-phase Lok Sabha elections began on April 19 and will end with the announcement of results on June 4. This verdict could have far-reaching consequences for India’s electoral process.

  • SC Verdict Today On Pleas Seeking 100% EVM-VVPAT Vote Verification |

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to declare its verdict on Wednesday regarding several petitions requesting complete cross-verification of votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) using the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). The VVPAT serves as an autonomous method for voters to verify if their votes have been accurately recorded. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta will pronounce the specific instructions on the plea in which order was reserved by the apex court on April 18. 

    During the hearing the top court pointed out the importance of voter’s trust in the electoral system and their satisfaction. The SC told petitioners seeking direction to go back to using ballot papers, not to suspect the efficacy of EVMs and appreciate if the Election Commission does good work.  

    During the nearly two-day hearing, the bench discussed with senior Deputy Election Commissioner Nitesh Kumar Vyas for about an hour to grasp the operation of EVMs. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Election Commission, asserted that EVMs are standalone devices invulnerable to tampering, although he acknowledged the potential for human error. 

    On April 16, the SC depreciated the criticism of EVMs and calls for going back to ballot papers, saying the electoral process in India is a “humongous task” and attempts should not be made to “bring down the system”, reported PTI. 

    The NGO ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’ (ADR) sought the court to change a decision made by the election commission in 2017. This decision was about replacing see-through glass on voting machines with opaque glass. With the new glass, a voter can only see their vote slip when a light is on for seven seconds. 

    The ADR has requested that the number of votes recorded by EVMs matches the votes that have been reliably recorded as cast. They also want to ensure that voters can confirm through the VVPAT slip that their vote, as seen on the paper slip, has been counted as recorded. 

    At present, VVPAT slips from five randomly chosen EVMs in each Assembly segment undergo verification.