SC won't stay Kerala HC order to publish revised KEAM rank list
Adopting a cautionary note, the top court said it did not want to create a sense of uncertainty among students.
A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, instead, issued notice to the State and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on a petition challenging the High Court decision.
The High Court had directed Kerala to revert to the standardisation formula followed in the original prospectus of KEAM 2025.
The apex court listed the next hearing after four weeks. The court did not budge even though petitioners requested an earlier date of hearing for the reason that admission procedures would be over by August 14 as per the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) deadline.
Kerala won't file appeal
Meanwhile, the State of Kerala informed it was not filing an appeal against the High Court order. The top court had, on July 15, asked Kerala to revert on whether it planned to file an appeal.
Appearing for Kerala, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta said the State proposed to implement the necessary reforms in KEAM's standardisation formula the next year in order to level any bumps in the playing field between CBSE and State syllabus candidates.
'We propose to make the change next year,' Mr. Gupta said.
Appearing for a group of CBSE students who had filed a caveat in the case, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Aljo Joseph said the State must also reflect on why State syllabus students were lagging behind their CBSE counterparts year after year.
'Perhaps they need to have a relook of the curriculum. There has to be an introspection by Kerala and other States,' Mr. Ramachandran said.
Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Zulfiker Ali P.S., representing the State syllabus students who appealed against the High Court order, countered that the State's decision to amend the standardisation formula was a result of such an 'introspection'. The amended formula had been devised to end the disparity between CBSE and State syllabus candidates for KEAM.
Unfair advantage
The State had constituted the Standardisation Review Committee in April after exam authorities had flagged that the 1:1:1 ratio for marks obtained in 10+2 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry gave CBSE students an unfair advantage over the State Board students.
'This had meant the State students would see their marks drop while the CBSE students would have their marks soar,' Mr. Bhushan said.
On July 1, the State, taking into consideration the committee report and the suggestions given by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, had decided to amend the ratio for subject marks in KEAM 2025 to 5:3:2 instead of the earlier 1:1:1. It had gone on to publish the KEAM rank list the very same day.
On July 10, the High Court had directed the reversion to 1:1:1 as provided in the original prospectus.
'The State government was entirely within its right to make the amendment. It was done on the basis of a report by an expert committee. The High Court had intervened despite a consistent stand by this court to not intervene in policy matters unless they were found to be arbitrary or discriminatory to students,' Mr. Bhushan argued.
Mr. Gupta said the State was entirely with Mr. Bhushan on merits, and assured reforms for next academic year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Kerala HC Cancels KEAM Result After Last-Minute Change In Prospectus
Last Updated: Justice D K Singh ruled that the revised method of calculating engineering entrance ranks negatively impacted CBSE syllabus students. The Kerala government has appealed against the High Court single bench order that nullified the KEAM rank list. The Division Bench will review the appeal on Thursday. The High Court declared the Kerala Engineering, Architecture, and Medical (KEAM) exam results published by the government invalid. It used a new formula for consolidating marks, reported ANI. The single bench also instructed a revision of the KEAM rank list. The state government released the KEAM results last week, applying the new formula that addressed longstanding concerns from Kerala syllabus students about mark reductions due to consolidation. Hana Fathima, a student who completed Plus Two under the CBSE syllabus, filed a petition challenging the mark consolidation in the rank list. The Plus Two student approached the High Court, questioning this process, the ANI report added. The High Court accepted the student's argument that the prospectus was altered at the final stage of the admission process. The verdict considered that CBSE students lost the weightage they previously had due to the new mark consolidation equation. The government had announced that the rank list was prepared by combining marks from the entrance exam and Plus Two results. There were complaints that the former equation caused Kerala syllabus students to score 15 to 20 marks less than CBSE students. Justice D K Singh ruled that the revised method of calculating engineering entrance ranks negatively impacted CBSE syllabus students. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE), Kerala, released the rank list for the Kerala Engineering Architecture Medical (KEAM) Entrance Exam 2025 on July 1. The entrance exams were held from April 23 to 29. The engineering exams were conducted daily during the afternoon session, from 2 pm to 5 pm. The pharmacy entrance test took place over multiple sessions. On April 24, there were two sessions — one from 11:30 am to 1 pm, and another from 3:30 pm to 5 pm. The final pharmacy session was held on April 29 from 10 am to 11:30 am. view comments First Published: July 10, 2025, 08:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
UAPA कायद्याविरोधातील याचिका उच्च न्यायालयाने फेटाळली; प्रकाश आंबेडकर सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात जाणार
The High Court Rejected The Petition Against The Uapa Law Adv Prakash Ambedkar Will Go To The Supreme Court
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Last Updated: Only grounded, objective criteria - threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity - should govern permissible restrictions. The Supreme Court has rightly slammed the Karnataka government and the state film chamber for siding with the enemies of free speech. The apex court was aghast that no action was taken against those who threatened violence over the release of actor-politician Kamal Haasan's movie, Thug Life. The state government told the court that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film and also pledged to provide full security if the producers chose to release it. It was heartening to see in this case that the SC not just gave relief to the Thug Life makers but also wanted action against those who had issued threats. The apex court Bench, headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing petitions on June 19 filed by the Thug Life producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence. Thug Life was scheduled for release in Karnataka on June 5, but got embroiled in controversy following Haasan's comment that the Kannada language was 'born out of Tamil." The comment was widely resented by pro-Kannada groups, which demanded an apology from Haasan. Taking a brave stance, he refused to apologise, despite the threat of imminent commercial losses because of the non-release of the movie in the state. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also took a tough stand, saying that Thug Life would not be released without an apology from Haasan. When Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court, it chided him for his remarks and asked him to apologise. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it not only criticised the Karnataka government but also reprimanded the state High Court for having urged Haasan to apologise. 'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role," the SC said. On June 17, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rule of law requires a person to be able to release a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court warned the state that it could not allow 'mobs and vigilante groups to take over," asserting that public sentiment should not override legal rights. It was only after the SC snub that the Karnataka government pledged to maintain law and order and ensure the peaceful release of Thug Life. The government clarified that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film's release and would provide necessary protection and security. This was not the first case in which the adversaries of free speech exploited the notion of 'hurt sentiments" to justify censorship. Public intellectuals assist them by raising the wrong questions, by debating whether protests over a film, book, or song are justified, and by asking whether someone's feelings were really hurt. They should be asking instead: can hurt sentiments be a basis for banning anything? Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be regulated only by 'reasonable restrictions" for state security, friendly relations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offend. But nowhere does the Constitution permit restrictions based solely on hurt sentiments or feelings. The distinction is vital: while reasons can be scrutinized and debated objectively, sentiments are personal and cannot be uniformly measured or validated. Dictionaries define 'sentiment" as emotional attitudes or opinions influenced by feeling, and 'feeling" as unreasoned emotional reactions. By their nature, these are subjective—what deeply offends one group may leave another unmoved. Take, for example, the case of M.F. Husain: some Hindus found his work as hurtful, while others didn't. It must be mentioned here that the anti-blasphemy law, Section 299 of BNS, is used to gag free speech. Section 299 (which was earlier Section 295A of the IPC) says: 'Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 299 is logically untenable as it criminalises speech based on feelings, which—as we mentioned earlier—are subjective. Therefore, it is antithetical to India's constitutional spirit as it imposes vague restrictions on freedom of expression. The extant court cases are symptomatic of the systemic toxicity that sentimentalism has generated over the decades. Sentimentalism, along with its sibling sanctimoniousness, has supplanted reason in public discourse and political debate. Ranting, canting demagogues and intellectuals set the agenda, resulting in the silencing of dissent, throttling of creativity, and often atrocities against those who speak out—all in the name of soothing 'hurt sentiments.' This trend must be reversed. As Justice Bhuyan said, 'There is no end to hurt sentiments in India. If a stand-up comedian says something, sentiments are hurt, and there is vandalism… Where are we heading?" The reign of hurt sentiments must be dismantled from law and public life. Only grounded, objective criteria—threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity—should govern permissible restrictions. Otherwise, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: June 26, 2025, 16:10 IST News opinion Opinion | Reign Of 'Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
