HC seeks CET cell's reply to mistakes in LLB CET question paper
The candidate, Shashivadana Shetty, a Malad resident, raised objections to one of the questions (Which one of the four options given in the question was a communicable disease?) that had four options (A. tuberculosis B. diabetes C. influenza D. hepatitis). According to the State CET cell, option C (influenza) was the correct answer. But, she pointed out, according to global medical authorities, tuberculosis and hepatitis B are also communicable diseases. Shetty claimed she had marked option A (tuberculosis) as her answer to the question as it is a highly infectious, airborne disease, which spreads when infected individuals cough, sneeze, or spit, making it a critical public health concern, she said the question had multiple correct answers, which rendered it defective.
After the declaration of results on May 30, Shetty paid a requisite fee of ₹1,000 and filed an objection on the State CET portal to this question. She stated that she had submitted scientific references supporting her claim, including publications from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information and Merriam-Webster. When the CET cell published the list of objections on June 13, Shetty's objection was not in it. She sent an e-mail to the State CET cell but did not receive any reply. She then visited the CET cell office in person with a notice. She was told here that she may approach the High Court.
In the high court, the CET cell maintained that the petitioner's remedy was to approach the committee constituted for resolving such objections.
The division bench of Justice MS Karnik and Justice NR Borkar observed that at least 16 students, including Shetty, had raised objections to various questions with multiple correct answers in the options. However, as the committee had rejected them, there was no point in asking the petitioner to file an objection with the committee again.
The court then ordered CET Cell's advocate, Sameer Khedekar, and additional government pleader Kavita N Solunke, to file their affidavits in a week. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 16.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
No interim relief to plea challenging Kabootar khanas closure: ‘Human health paramount'
Observing that the BMC's recent crackdown on pigeon feeding at Kabootar khanas (feeding areas) took 'human health to be paramount' into consideration, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners challenging the closure of such areas. The HC, while noting that rights of humans and animals should be balanced, refused to pass an interim order permitting feeding pigeons twice a day pending hearing of the plea. The Court however directed that no old heritage Kabootar khanas can be demolished till further orders. Earlier this month, the Maharashtra government had directed BMC to close Kabootar khanas in the city citing serious health hazards due to pigeon droppings and feathers. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing a writ plea filed by animal rights activist Pallavi Sachin Patil along with Sneha Deepak Visaria and Savita Mahajan, who sought direction to restrain BMC from demolishing Kabootar khanas/feeding areas for pigeons and to ensure that the petitioners and other citizens are not prevented from feeding pigeons. The plea also sought direction to BMC to restore the 'status quo' with respect to demolished or damaged kabootar khanas. Pending the plea's hearing, the petitioner sought a stay on BMC's 'illegal actions' with respect to the demolition of such feeding areas. 'BMC has material that citizens are affected. Medical science has progressed and there are evidence…It has happened in England, where some old people have died. We don't know what kind of lungs we have now. There are children and senior citizens. Why not adhere to the policy?' the HC orally questioned the petitioner's lawyer. Advocate Harish Pandya for the petitioner argued that even birds have the right to life and are required to be fed. Justice Kulkarni responded, 'There is an issue of concern all over… particularly at such a place (kabootar khana). It is becoming some kind of pandemic as a number of such places come up. KEM Hospital and other Municipal Hospitals have material as they deal with regular visits of persons affected with such diseases.' The judge went on to remark, 'While we recognise animal rights, we also have to put human rights on a high pedestal… You cannot put animal rights over human rights… rights of animals and humans are required to be balanced… We will have to examine whether it (balancing) is not done in the present decision. The corporation had not taken such a decision so far and now they had to because a lot of thought went into it. The whole idea is not to get these pigeons at one place.' Pandya argued that BMC acted in aa 'highhanded and arbitrary manner,' and sought interim relief to feed the pigeons at designated places twice a day so that 'they shall not die of thirst and hunger'. 'This is not a correct stand… that all pigeons in Mumbai go to Kabootar khana. You will find them everywhere… even in the HC corridor… Do you want us to say that pigeons will die if they do not visit Kabootar khana? They are surviving by themselves but you want to feed them because they gather at one place in Dadar area and are only concerned with them,' Justice Kulkarni orally remarked. 'There has to be a logic to your argument… Are you going to feed thousands and lakhs of pigeons? Who said pigeons depend only on your feeding? This is the rainy season so there is no shortage of water… We are conscious of animal rights and they should be balanced… How can they (animal rights) be overwhelming when public health is concerned? Their congregation should be stopped is what they (authorities) are saying,' the judges added. 'In view of the policy now sought to be implemented by the Municipal Corporation considering human health to be paramount, we are not inclined to grant any ad-interim order at this stage… Till the adjourned date of hearing, the old heritage kabootar khanas may not be demolished,' the HC noted. The bench directed the state government, BMC, Animal Welfare Boards of India and Maharashtra Police to file their affidavits in reply along with the response of Dean of civic-run KEM Hospital on health hazards before the next date of hearing on July 23.
Hindustan Times
19 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Charitable hospitals in Pune oppose mandatory government health schemes
The Association of Hospitals (AOH), Pune, has challenged a recent Maharashtra government decision mandating all charitable hospitals to implement state-run health schemes. On Monday, the association filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, citing financial and operational difficulties with the move. The controversy stems from a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Department of Law and Judiciary on April 21, 2025. (REPRESENTATIVE PIC) The controversy stems from a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Department of Law and Judiciary on April 21, 2025. The GR eliminates the earlier voluntary nature of joining health schemes, making it compulsory for charitable hospitals to participate in Central and State-run initiatives like the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Jan Arogya Yojana (MJPJAY), and Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK), among others. Subsequently, on June 4, 2025, the Joint Charity Commissioner's office in Pune issued directives requiring charitable hospitals to begin implementation and submit compliance reports by June 12. The AOH, which represents several leading hospitals in the region, strongly opposes the mandate. Member hospitals of the AOH include Ruby Hall Clinic, Jehangir Hospital, Vishwaraj Hospital, KEM Hospital, Sancheti Hospital, Inlaks and Budhrani Hospital, Poona Hospital, and NM Wadia Hospital. In the petition, AOH argues that while they support providing care to the underprivileged, the package rates under the schemes are too low to cover the operational costs of running tertiary care hospitals. Dr HK Sale, executive director of Noble Hospital and chairman of the Association of Hospitals, Pune, said, 'If the hospitals start all the schemes, they will be flooded with patients who want to get treated under the scheme, and there will be no space for other patients. For investigations, the hospitals have high-end, latest machinery and devices, which are cost-exorbitant. There are senior and expert doctors and trained staff which needs to be paid at par with the market rates. How will it be possible for the hospitals to survive?' According to data shared by officials, there are 58 charitable hospitals in Pune, 74 in Mumbai, and 468 in other parts of Maharashtra. All charitable hospitals are already obligated under the Indigent Patients Fund (IPF) scheme, mandated by a 2006 Bombay High Court order, to allocate 2% of their gross billing for free or subsidised treatment. This includes reserving 10% of beds for indigent patients (treated entirely free) and another 10% for economically weaker sections at a 50% discount. The AOH claims the charitable hospitals are already fulfilling their duty by providing free and subsidised treatment to the needy under the IPF scheme. However, the government has issued the GR to ensure that no needy patient is deprived of medical aid due to the unavailability of IPF. Many times, the charitable hospitals have reportedly denied or refused treatment to the needy patients, stating unavailability of IPF and in such cases, the patients can be given the option or benefit of other government health schemes, said the officials. Adv Manjusha Kulkarni, from Ruby Hall Clinic, who is secretary and legal advisor of AOH, said, 'The petition was filed by the association, which includes all trust hospitals, against the government decision. This will affect the hospitals badly and they won't be able to sustain and compete with the global healthcare facilities that offer advanced technology in healthcare. We will not be able to develop or sustain it, and every hospital needs to maintain its standards.' As per AOH, around 78% healthcare services are provided by private hospitals, and they are not considered by the government prior to making any decisions. Currently, everyone is using Robots for surgery, and it is expensive and patients can't be provided surgical management under the rates offered by the schemes. Furthermore, diagnostic facilities like CT Scan machines cost around ₹8 to 10 crore, and scan machines are worth up to ₹50 crore. Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) for medical equipment costs around ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore, due to which the scan tests cost around ₹15 to 18k. This test cannot be provided for nominal charges, unlike small nursing homes that have CT machines worth ₹40 to 50 lakh. Dr Priti Lokhande, coordinator for MJPJAY and PM-JAY scheme, who is coordinating with the Charitable hospitals for the empanelment, said, 'There has been a Lukewarm response even after the GR and directions from charity Commissionerate hospitals. We have received requests from only two charitable hospitals in the Pune district who have shown interest to get empaneled. However, the charitable hospitals remain firm on their stand and are not ready to get empaneled,' she said. Ashish Purnale, district coordinator for RBSK, said only nine hospitals are currently empanelled under the scheme, of which six are private. 'There are over 104 procedures covered under RBSK, but uptake remains low,' he said. Dr. Vinod Sawantwadkar, CEO of Jehangir Hospital, emphasised that government facilities should first upgrade their infrastructure. 'We are already contributing through IPF and health camps. The issue is limited bed capacity and staff. Government hospitals need better facilities; private hospitals cannot bear the entire burden,' he said. He also pointed out that maintaining high standards of care is non-negotiable. 'We offer world-class treatment through specialised doctors and cutting-edge technology. Quality cannot be compromised for affordability alone.' The AOH's legal challenge seeks to revoke the GR and restore the voluntary nature of empanelment, emphasising that charitable hospitals should not be forced into schemes that threaten their viability.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks CET cell's reply to mistakes in LLB CET question paper
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently directed the State Common Entrance Test (CET) cell to file an affidavit in reply to a petition filed by an LLB aspirant complaining that in the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test for the 3-year LLB program (MAH-LLB-3Y-CET) 2025 examination, several objective-type questions had multiple correct answers when the candidates were supposed to choose one. Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO) The candidate, Shashivadana Shetty, a Malad resident, raised objections to one of the questions (Which one of the four options given in the question was a communicable disease?) that had four options (A. tuberculosis B. diabetes C. influenza D. hepatitis). According to the State CET cell, option C (influenza) was the correct answer. But, she pointed out, according to global medical authorities, tuberculosis and hepatitis B are also communicable diseases. Shetty claimed she had marked option A (tuberculosis) as her answer to the question as it is a highly infectious, airborne disease, which spreads when infected individuals cough, sneeze, or spit, making it a critical public health concern, she said the question had multiple correct answers, which rendered it defective. After the declaration of results on May 30, Shetty paid a requisite fee of ₹1,000 and filed an objection on the State CET portal to this question. She stated that she had submitted scientific references supporting her claim, including publications from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information and Merriam-Webster. When the CET cell published the list of objections on June 13, Shetty's objection was not in it. She sent an e-mail to the State CET cell but did not receive any reply. She then visited the CET cell office in person with a notice. She was told here that she may approach the High Court. In the high court, the CET cell maintained that the petitioner's remedy was to approach the committee constituted for resolving such objections. The division bench of Justice MS Karnik and Justice NR Borkar observed that at least 16 students, including Shetty, had raised objections to various questions with multiple correct answers in the options. However, as the committee had rejected them, there was no point in asking the petitioner to file an objection with the committee again. The court then ordered CET Cell's advocate, Sameer Khedekar, and additional government pleader Kavita N Solunke, to file their affidavits in a week. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 16.
