The World Opinion

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 are hearing the case today. 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.

    Central Government’s Affidavit 

    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.

    Aspirants Approached SC

    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.

    All About NEET-UG Exam 

    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. 

  • Supreme Court Dismisses DK Shivakumar’s Plea On Quashing CBI’s Disproportionate Assets Case |

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar’s plea seeking to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) disproportionate assets case against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Deputy Chief Minister against the order of the Karnataka High Court, which had earlier rejected his plea. The CBI moved the Karnataka High Court after the state government dropped the CBI case against Shivakumar. The High Court was hearing the plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal challenging the state government’s withdrawal of consent for the CBI probe.

    The Supreme Court had earlier refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court interim order staying proceedings against Congress leader Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case. The Congress-ruled Karnataka government, in November, approved a proposal to withdraw the CBI probe against Shivakumar in the alleged disproportionate assets case.

    This decision triggered a massive political fight in the state between the BJP and the Congress with the former criticising the state cabinet’s decision as ‘totally illegal’. The CBI was probing a case lodged against the deputy CM for allegedly holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Earlier, Income Tax sleuths had conducted a search against him.

    In 2017, the Income Tax Department raided DK Shivakumar, leading to an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. The CBI later sought permission from the state government to file an FIR against him based on the findings of the ED probe.

    On September 25, 2019, the sanction was granted, and on October 3, 2020, Shivakumar was charged by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

  • 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

  • SC halts release of Annu Kapoor’s ‘Hamare Baarah’ | Movies News

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday halted the screening of the Bollywood movie ‘Hamare Baarah’ till the petition challenging its release is decided by the Bombay High Court.

    Asking the high court to expeditiously decide the plea challenging the certification given by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a vacation bench of the apex court presided over by Justice Vikram Nath rejected the filmmakers’ contention that objectionable parts were taken away from the teaser.

    “We saw the teaser this morning. It continues with all those offensive dialogues,” added the Bench, also comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta.

    In an order passed on June 7, the Bombay High Court lifted the interim stay granted on the release of the film after a panel formed by the CBFC on the court’s direction sought an extension of time to give an uninfluenced opinion on the film.

    Further, a bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Rajesh S. Patil of the high court noted that the filmmakers have voluntarily agreed to delete certain controversial dialogues.

    Last week, the Karnataka government banned the release of the film in the state, stating that it may disturb communal harmony.

  • No Relief For Arvind Kejriwal: SC Registry Refuses Urgent Listing Of Delhi CM’s Plea For Bail Extension |

    In a setback for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court registry refused to urgently list his plea seeking extension of his interim bail by seven days for undergoing certain medical tests. The Apex court said that the plea is not maintainable because Kejriwal was given the option to seek regular bail from the trial court.  

    A vacation bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan acknowledged the plea submitted by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the chief minister, the court stated that the decision to list the interim plea can be made by the CJI since the judgement in the main matter has been reserved. 

    In a press conference the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) informed that the Delhi CM has sought a 7-day extension of his interim bail on medical grounds as the doctor has prescribed some tests including PET-CT scan as unexplained weight loss of the CM combined with high ketone levels are signs that may indicate kidney issues, serious cardiac diseases, and even cancer. 

    Kejriwal in a fresh plea filed on May 26 said that he will surrender before the authorities on June 9 instead of June 2 (the date directed by court during his interim bail). 

    On May 10, the top court granted the chief minister a 21-day temporary bail so he could campaign for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. He had been arrested for money laundering related to a scandal involving the excise policy scam. The court ordered that Kejriwal must turn himself in on June 2, the day after the final phase of the seven-part election ends.  

  • Kejriwal’s Interim Bail Plea: SC To Hear Arguments Due To Lok Sabha Elections On May 7

    Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing the ED, that the hearing on Kejriwal’s plea against arrest was likely to take time, so the court was considering hearing the probe agency on interim bail for him.

  • ‘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.