SC junks plea challenging NTA practice on conduct of NEET-UG
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking the publication of the final answer key of NEET-UG 2025 before results are declared.
A vacation bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan asked petitioner Najiya Nasre as to why the high court wasn't approached in this case.
Replying to the query, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Nasre, said the issue raised in the petition has 'all-India ramifications'.
'Many students are involved and would adversely be impacted by this,' he argued. The top court told the petitioner that she should approach the concerned high court for relief.
The petitioner had moved the top court challenging the practice followed by the National Testing Agency in which the final answer keys of the exam are published after the final result is announced. Opposing this, the NTA said it was only for the betterment of students that the final answer keys are published after final results are declared.
The petitioner said this leads to revaluation of ranks, leading to 'serious consequences' and in violation of Article 14.
Also in top court
Plea over Ambanis' security rejected
The Court on Friday pulled up a litigant for filling repeated pleas and binned his petition seeking revocation of the 'Z' plus security cover provided to industrialist Mukesh Ambani and his family, saying arm-twisting of the court's process cannot be allowed. A top court also clarified that it has authority over who is provided which security cover.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Against Ambedkar's ideology': CJI Gavai on Article 370; says need 'one Constitution to keep country united'
NEW DELHI: The Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Saturday supported the abrogation of Article 370 and said that in order to keep the country united, "we need only one Constitution". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He recalled when the case was brought before the Supreme Court, the five-judge bench unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 citing it against BR Ambedkar's ideology. "When Article 370 was challenged, it came before us, and when the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country... If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution," PTI quoted Gavai saying. On August 5, 2019, the Centre revoked 's special status and reorganised it into two Union territories. Justice Gavai noted that Ambedkar had faced criticism for including too much federalism in the Constitution, with concerns that it might weaken national unity during times of war. "See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united," he added. Gavai was speaking at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park in Nagpur.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the immediate release of a 24-year-old law student, who had been in preventive detention in Bhopal's Central Jail for nearly a year under the National Security Act. The student was detained after a disturbance at a university campus in Madhya Pradesh's Betul which reportedly occurred after he allegedly clashed with a professor on June 14, 2024, Live Law reported. The first information report filed in the case included charges pertaining to attempt to murder. The student surrendered on June 16 and was placed under judicial custody. When he was in jail, the authorities issued a preventive detention order under the National Security Act which kept getting extended every three months, the legal news outlet reported. The National Security Act allows the Central or state government to order the detention of a person 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations with foreign powers, or the security of India'. It may also order detention to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial 'to the security of the State', the 'maintenance of public order' or the 'maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community'. The police and district magistrates have the power to issue detention orders, subject to approval by the state government within 12 days. Rights bodies in India have criticised the National Security Act for vaguely worded charges, procedures that subvert the due processes of law, provisions that require courts to draw 'adverse inferences' against the accused, lack of mechanisms to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory detention, and sweeping immunities for government officials. During the hearing, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran found the reasons for his detention insufficient to meet legal requirements, calling his confinement 'wholly untenable'. The Supreme Court found invoking the National Security Act unnecessary saying that there was no proper reason to keep him in preventive detention while he was already being held under regular legal charges, Live Law reported. 'At the most, these are all issues of law and order,' the court verbally observed. ''Public order' is something bigger.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 hours ago
- First Post
‘Is my baby going to be a citizen?': US Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship triggers fear among immigrants
The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. read more The US Supreme Court's decision on Friday has sown confusion and anxiety among immigrant families particularly those with expectant mothers over the future of birthright citizenship in the country. The ruling, delivered by the court's conservative majority on Friday allows an executive order by President Donald Trump to partially move forward. The order, issued on his first day back in office this January seeks to end the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Though three lower court judges had blocked the measure nationwide, citing constitutional concerns, the Supreme Court did not directly rule on the order's legality. Instead, it curbed the ability of judges to issue broad, nationwide injunctions, opening the door for the policy to take effect in some states while legal battles continue in others. That partial green light has created uncertainty about how the ruling will be applied and who it will affect, particularly in the 28 states that did not challenge the executive order. Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups have since reported a surge in calls from worried parents and expectant immigrants trying to understand what the decision means for their children's citizenship. One of them is Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker living in Houston and due to give birth in September. After scanning news reports, she told AP she was left more confused than reassured. 'There are not many specifics. I don't understand it well,' she said. Her main concern: what if her baby is born without any nationality? 'I don't know if I can pass on my citizenship. I also don't know if I can add her to my asylum claim. I just don't want her to be stateless.' Trump has framed his crackdown on birthright citizenship as part of a broader immigration reform agenda, arguing that current policies serve as a 'magnet' for migrants seeking to give birth in the U.S. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said at a White House briefing. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Legal experts, however, warn that the current situation risks creating a fragmented and chaotic system. Kathleen Bush-Joseph of the Migration Policy Institute cautioned that different states could now interpret and apply the order differently. 'Would individual hospitals have to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents? It's an extremely confusing patchwork,' she said. In response to the ruling, advocacy groups filed an amended lawsuit in Maryland federal court on Friday afternoon seeking class-action protection for individuals who may be denied citizenship under the new policy. The fear is already palpable on the ground. Lynn Tramonte of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance recounted receiving a call from a man on a temporary visa whose pregnant wife was due soon. Worried that Ohio wasn't among the states challenging the policy, he wanted to know how he could safeguard his child's citizenship. Some groups—such as CASA in Maryland and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, remain shielded from the policy under prior court rulings, but it remains unclear whether people in other states could join these organizations to gain the same protection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For US-born Betsy, a recent high school graduate from Virginia and a CASA member, the policy feels deeply personal. Her Salvadoran parents were undocumented when she was born. 'It targets innocent kids who haven't even been born yet,' she said, asking to withhold her full name for safety. Others are also grappling with the implications. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana and a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, recently gave birth. On Friday, she got a call from a pregnant friend—also undocumented—terrified about what might happen under Louisiana's Republican administration. 'She asked, 'If my baby is born here, will she still be a citizen?' As the legal process unfolds and enforcement details remain murky, expectant immigrant parents are left in limbo unsure whether their US-born children will be granted the very citizenship once considered a constitutional birthright. With inputs from agencies
