Kerala HC cancels engineering and medical results; revised guidelines affect CBSE, ICSE students
The KEAM exams were conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination from 23 to 29 April 2025, with results announced on 14 May. The final rank list was published on 1 July.
Justice D.K. Singh observed that the revised ranking methodology for KEAM 2025 disproportionately disadvantaged students who had studied the CBSE or ICSE syllabus during their higher secondary education. Consequently, the Court set aside the amended prospectus and directed the state to issue a revised rank list in accordance with the original, unamended prospectus.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
19 hours ago
- News18
Karnataka HC Seeks Govt's Reply On Kannada Mandate In CBSE, ICSE Schools
Parents and teachers allege that the state government is indirectly pressuring CBSE and CISCE schools to adopt Kannada by using regulatory mechanisms like NOCs. The Karnataka High Court has instructed the state government to explain within three months why Kannada should be a mandatory subject in CBSE and CISCE-affiliated schools. This directive was issued during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging this decision. The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice V. Kameswara Rao and Justice C.M. Joshi, expressed dissatisfaction with the government for not responding so far. The court remarked that the government has been inactive for two years. If this continues, the court may consider granting interim relief to the petitioners. The petition disputes the mandate for compulsory teaching of Kannada as a first or second language in CBSE and CISCE schools, as stipulated by the Karnataka Language Teaching Act, 2015, and its related rules established in 2017. The petitioners argued that this decision infringes on the freedom of language choice, potentially impacting students' academic freedom and teachers' employment. According to the rules, schools failing to comply risk having their NOC (No Objection Certificate) revoked, jeopardizing their recognition. The petitioners contend that students should have the right to choose their first, second, and third languages. They believe that enforcing Kannada could affect students' future prospects, especially those preparing for competitive exams or studying in other states. The petition also highlights concerns that teachers unable to teach Kannada may face employment challenges due to the new language policy. Parents and teachers allege that the state government is indirectly pressuring CBSE and CISCE schools to adopt Kannada by using regulatory mechanisms like NOCs. They argue that this could set a dangerous precedent against academic freedom and parental choice. The court has given the state government three months to respond. The next hearing will occur only after this period. For now, the court has adjourned the case. view comments First Published: 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.
Indian Express
21 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Indirect censorship': Digipub moves Karnataka High Court supporting X Corp's plea against takedown orders
The Digipub News India Foundation, a coalition of digital media organisations and independent journalists, Friday made submissions before the Karnataka High Court, supporting X Corp's petition against alleged subjective blocking orders on X issued by Central government officers across the country. A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case challenging the blocking orders on X using Section 79 (3)(B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. X Corp also raised issues with the Sahyog portal for intermediaries, which it has previously referred to as a censorship portal. Previously, during Tuesday's hearing, X Corp's counsel, senior advocate K G Raghavan, argued that government officials were issuing the takedown orders for social media posts without applying any uniform standard. X Corp has been arguing that these takedown orders can be issued only through the mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, that is, through Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, and not Section 79 (3)(B). Raghavan previously argued that 69A had been upheld by the apex court on account of inherent safeguards, while 79(3)(b), which deals with the removal of protection from intermediaries like X, did not have such safeguards. Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Digipub, stated, 'X is before the high court as an intermediary….the parties directly affected by the entire exercise that the government has come up with is us….these media organisations are in a dual capacity of providing and receiving content online.' He pointed out that in the exercise of takedown of content by the intermediaries, the content creator in question did not get the chance to be heard. He also questioned the manner in which Rule (3)(1) (d) of the IT rules, which refers back to Section 79 (3) (b), is being applied, raising the issue of free speech implications. Referring to safe harbour protections of intermediaries being a free speech right, he said, 'It is precisely this, the indirect censorship, that is now being played out through this mechanism. An officer unhappy with a news report etc not palatable to his personal politics, political master morality….sits in his office and says take it down. That is the chilling effect.' Referring to the current takedown orders as well as the Sahyog platform, Sondhi stated that the situation was that of an 'ad hoc executive regime'. He added, 'A judicial determination of an unlawful act by a duly constituted court of law on the one hand – and a cyclostyled form in the hands of an officer to fill in a couple of blanks, directly infringing Article 19 (1)(a) [freedom of speech].' The hearing is set to continue on July 17.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Trial delays forcing innocents to spend years in prison: Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai
HYDERABAD: Stating that India and the legal system are facing unique challenges that require urgent attention, Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai on Saturday asserted that the country has the talent to find solutions. Speaking at the 22nd Annual Convocation of NALSAR University of Law, the CJI said: 'Delays in trials can sometimes last decades. There are cases where individuals have been declared innocent after spending years in jail as undertrials. Our best talent can help resolve such issues.' Justice Gavai noted the disparity in perceptions surrounding legal graduates, saying a student from a national law school in a metro city is often considered better placed than one from a smaller university. 'This is not necessarily because of skill, but perception. It is unfair, but real. We need to confront it, not accept it,' he said. The CJI stressed the importance of core legal subjects such as the Constitution, Contract Act, Code of Civil Procedure and Criminal Law, stating that there is no shortcut to legal knowledge and no alternative to knowing the basics. He also referred to the rapid changes in law due to emerging areas like artificial intelligence and data privacy. Addressing the growing trend of pursuing foreign degrees, the CJI said such qualifications have become symbols of validation. 'If you wish to go, go. It teaches you how the world thinks. But go with scholarship and funding. Go with purpose, not pressure. I see young lawyers taking loans of `50–70 lakh for this. Do not put yourself or your family under such a burden. A foreign degree alone is not a stamp of your worth.' Justice Gavai said the trend also reflects a deeper structural concern, that of a lack of confidence in India's postgraduate legal education and research. 'If we want to keep our best minds or bring them back, we must create nurturing academic environments, offer transparent and merit-based opportunities, and most importantly, restore dignity and purpose to legal research and teaching in India.' SC Judge Justice PS Narasimha, CM A Revanth Reddy, Acting CJ of the Telangana HC were present.
