Justice Singh notes that it has received a status report from teh Grievance Redressal Committee.
I have given data on how many students appeared in the OBE. The data was recorded by the Division Bench of the Court: Adv M Rupal for DU.
This data is for the first data. It includes everything: Adv Rupal as he asks the Court to take a look at the DB order.
Why can't you file an affidavit: Court
I'll send the affidavit filed before the DB: Adv Rupal
OBE has been a big success. The participation in the first phase was as much as in normal examination: Senior Adv Sachin Dutta for DU
Even for the second phase, most students have opted for online mode: Dutta
Senior Dutta informs the Court about the arrangement for students who wish to go abroad for higher education.
For PG students who are going abroad, we will declare results give month itself: Dutta
Senior Adv BB Gupta says that the issue of remuneration of the Chairperson of the Grievance Redressal Committee is still persisting.
There is an Acting Registrar. On the letter head, particulars can be given : Rupal
I don't think there's a need to do this.. I'll give three days maximum: Court as it notes that there is an order to this effect.
Adv Kamal Gupta from the Grievance Redressal Committee says that the Committee has not received any report from the Grievance Redressal Officers on the communication of the Committee's decision to the students.
There was a delay on my part. Now I have communicated all : Prof Ajay Arora (Grievance Redressal Officer)
How many complaints were there? : Court
23: Arora
Gupta points out that there were more.
23+9+7 decisions were there: Grievance Redressal Committee
Right from day 1, there is unnecessary suspension: Dutta for DU
DU is acting like that : Court
Mr Arora is saying that he has forwarded all decisions: Dutta
I'll personally talk to GRC and clarify. Please give me a date: Arora
The Court did not say anything. Your senior counsel is saying that you will file an affidavit: Court
You unnecessarily took it to an aggresive level : Court to DU counsel
Suppose something is missing, I'm a teacher by profession, I'll take care of it: Arora
You are being fair: Court
Court starts dictating the order.
Court records the submissions made before it.
Court records that the second phase was OBE is going on smoothly.
In case any decisions have been missed out, the same will be taken care of. Mr Arora is given two days to communicate ..: Court records
Let a complete statement on the date-wise communication of decision of GRC to students be given a status report : Court
There are many undergraduate students who have applied for special results but have not received. Also, certain Indian Universities are pressing for final results: Adv Akash Sinha
This issue is likely to be dealt by the Division Bench: Senior Adv BB Gupta
I'll deal with it after DB then: Court
Court is informed about the development before Division Bench with respect to students who are going abroad.
Can we be informed as to who are these Indian Universities who are pressing for final results? : Adv Kurup for UGC
I'm not appearing for them: Sinha
Adv Sinha to communicate it to Adv Kurup: Court records in order.
A large number of issues were sorted due to the inputs from Mr BB Gupta, Kamal Gupta and the Chairperson as well as court: Dutta
OBE was possible because of large no of people cooperating. There is no need to be aggressive: Court
Court notes that submission of intervenor counsel that the issue of data protection and privacy issues are pending.
Payment to GRC Chairperson be released within three days: Court
Mater adjourned till October 12.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.