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
Justice Oka is giving the 45th JP Memorial Lecture organised by PUCL India.
Justice Oka: Remembering Jayaprakash Narayan today, I go back to my first brush with his movement — I was 14, reading one Marathi and one English newspaper a day, without fully grasping the moment that would define a generation. JP, a committed Gandhian and colleague of leaders like N.G. Ranga, emerged as the leader of the youth in the 1970s; only later did I realise how much my generation underestimated the depth of his ideas.
#JusticeOka
Justice Oka: From his writings and speeches, one thing stands out: his unwavering faith in non-violence. For JP, non-violence was not a tactic, but a way of resisting evil with moral strength. He reminded us that negotiations, arbitration, friendship or mediation may succeed or fail — but for those who truly accept non-violence and are prepared to resist evil non-violently, there is no failure. That single idea has stayed with me: those who accept non-violence, and prepare themselves to resist whatever evil may come non-violently, discover a strength that no defeat can erase.
When I revisited JP’s life, I felt his active public role was cut short. Had he remained in public life for another 10–14 years perhaps we would have seen a different India.
#JusticeOka
Justice Oka: Let me now turn to today’s theme: where do we see the judiciary today, within the framework of our Constitution, which promises justice – social, economic and political – to every citizen. Our courts have, in many instances, delivered substantive and even spiritual justice, and I say this as someone who has seen the system from within. Yet I have consistently said: when the Constitution, the government and the citizens placed great expectations on the justice system, we did not fully live up to those expectations.
Delhi High Court stays further investigation and proceedings in FIR lodged against Tamil Nadu MLA and Secretary of Student Wing Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), C.V.M.P. Ezhilarasan, for organising a protest challenging proposed UGC laws, at Jantar Mantar on February 6.
The matter was listed before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
Senior Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the politician. He stated that the perusal of the FIR would itself show that there is no allegation that the peaceful protest held by the petitioner and his associates caused any obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the plea against Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale
Notably, Wangchuk’s detention was revoked by the Centre on March 14.
@Wangchuk66
While revoking Wangchuk’s detention earlier this month, the Centre said the decision was taken after considering the need to foster “an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust” in Ladakh.
Supreme Court Bar Association flags off its first National Conference on the theme “reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice”.
Justice Mehta: if a true picture is provided to litigants by lawyers at the first stage the chances of mediation succeeding would increase manifold.
Justice Mehta: But the most stumbling roadblock is the government. The experience in the national Lok Adalats where we hold pre-litigation mediation sessions is sad to say the least. There is hardly a single department of this government which comes forward with a positive response.
The person who is an accused is praying for protection? You are a suspected accused. You are trying to sensationalise the issue: Uttarakhand High Court to gym owner ‘Mohammad’ Deepak Kumar
The Court is hearing a plea filed by Kumar seeking quashing of an FIR agains him.
I have been receiving consistent threats: Kumar’s counsel
You are investigation: Court
That is a different thing: Counsel
[Day 2]: A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to resume hearing reference on the interpretation of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, in the State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh batch of cases
#SupremeCourt