A Justice Ashok Bhushan led bench of the Supreme Court to hear a batch of petitions today seeking to postpone the NEET-UG exams set to be held on September 13.
There are three cases listed. Lead case of Keshav Maheshwari is set to be argued by @advocate_alakh .. the other two of Arijit Sau and Pragya Pranjal too seeks to postpone NEET-UG exams. Pleas filed through @anubha1812
Justice MR Shah: Mr. Datar, all arrangements will be made for the #NEET exams
Arvind Datar refers to UGC judgment by #SupremeCourt
Datar seeks to highlight the example of Bihar where there are only 2 exam centres
SC observes that there cannot be different dates for different States.
SC: Whatever date is fixed, there might be some difficulty
Datar urges for the exam to be considered to be postponed by three weeks
SC points out that a review petition was also dismissed
Senior Advocate KTS Tulsi arguing for petitioners: #COVID19 cases are increasing and now there are 90,000 daily case.
Tulsi shows example of the Bombay HC's recent order where the JC said those who could not appear for the exam should be appropriately considered @MPKTSTulsi
Justice Ashok Bhushan: Whether the students should be considered or not is for the body to decide not for this Court to pass directions on
@MPKTSTulsi cites the Disaster Management Act and says that the students are at a high risk of contracting the virus
Senior Adv Tulsi cites Article 21
Advocate Shoeb Alam now arguing: My petition (Arijit Sau) is different from the petitions so far and is not seeking for deferment of the exams
Alam: I want to point out some lacuna in the guidelines issued by the NTA
Adv Shoeb Alam Alam prays that there might be some facilitation for aspirants to reach the exam centres.
Alam: The local authorities may be directed to ensure that the guidelines are enforced
SC: All this will be done
Adv Shoeb Alam: A slight nudge from your lordships will go a long way. At a time when there is a cap on large gatherings, there are hundreds of students who have to go out to take the exams so a direction from the Court will go a long way
#SupremeCourt is hearing plea challenging Karnataka HC dismissal to petitions challenging State government's decision to withdraw consent for CBI probe into corruption allegations against Congress leader & Deputy CM DK Shivakumar @CBIHeadquarters @DKShivakumar
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
On August 29, the Karnataka High Court rejected two petitions filed by CBI & BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal challenging Congress-led Karnataka government's decision to rescind consent for probe against Kumar
@BasanagoudaBJP
"If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block Wikipedia in India."
Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia for not complying with the Court's order directing it to disclose info about people who made edits on ANI's Wikipedia page.
@Wikipedia @ANI
ANI has sued Wikipedia for defamation.
The news agency has said that Wikipedia allowed defamatory edits on its page which referred to ANI as the "propaganda tool" for the present government.
HC had ordered Wikipedia to provide subscriber details to ANI of three people who made edits on its page.
Today, ANI filed a contempt application in the High Court alleging that the order has not been complied with.
#SupremeCourt bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud hears the case of ABP news channel against the case it faces for airing interview of dreaded criminal and gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, prime suspects in the Sidhu Moose Wala murder case
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: This is Article 19(1)(a) case and the HC order has a chilling effect on free speech. This is investigative journalism and nothing else. The journalist knows that phones are readily available in the jails. He used his sources and conducted the interview.
Rohatgi: HC was just considering how inmates get such benefits and someone pointed out the interview. The HC then directed FIR against the journalist. This is killing the messenger and then who will expose the rot? this is the state of investigative journalism!
CJI: the fact remains that you gained access to the jail and publish an interview in TV channel, whose permission did you take? we see the broader point of 19(1)(a)... but there are restrictions by virtue of incarceration...
Rohatgi: if at all this case has to go on then let it to go to CBI. how can the punjab police look into this at all ?
#Supremecourt
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
#MadrasHighCourt while hearing petition challenging detention of YouTuber #SavukkuShankar under #GoondasAct asks Tamil Nadu authorities:
"How many people are telling lies in TV channels and media? All the similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons?"
Justice SM Subramaniam: Is it possible for government to run behind all such persons spreading false news? Only if it affects public order (you can invoke preventive detention) … How it (Savukku Shankar’s comments) affected public order?
#MadrasHighCourt #SavakkuShankar
Justice Subramaniam: It is the person who views YouTube – it his basic right (choose what to see). Can you stop your thought process?
YouTube may have good and bad videos, a person has a right to choose what to watch, Judge adds.