Supreme Court seeks Telangana's response to petition on local quota in MBBS admissions
The matter was posted for further hearing in four weeks. The aspirants were challenging the state govt's orders amending the local quota provisions.
A bench of Justices Prashanth Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih, while directing all parties to file their responses by the next date of hearing, also allowed the aspirants to mention their case during the partial court work during the vacation in case of any urgency.
The bench provided this relaxation when the aspirants claimed that counselling for MBBS admissions would start immediately after the results are declared on June 14.
During the hearing, the aspirants claimed that they were born in Telangana and that their parents were also born in the state.
The petition challenges the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended in 2024.
According to the amended rule, students seeking admission to Telangana medical colleges must have studied in the state for four consecutive years before taking their qualifying exam.
The petitioners claimed that despite being born in Telangana and having completed most of their education in the state, the applicants became ineligible because they studied classes 11 and 12, or Intermediate, outside the state.
They also claimed that the govt passed the amendment after the academic year had started, at a time when they had already been admitted to courses outside the state. When the Supreme Court advised applicants to approach the high court for redress, they argued that the high court could not rule on the matter as their case was now before the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Odisha's infrastructure plans in eco-zones to be reviewed by CEC
BHUBANESWAR: Odisha government's plans for tourism and infrastructure projects in sensitive zones of critical protected areas (PAs) of the state have drawn the notice of the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The panel has now called for a meeting and asked chief secretary Manoj Ahuja to discuss crucial tourism and bridge infrastructure projects as well as the matter pertaining to eco sensitive zone (ESZ) finalisation. The meeting is scheduled on July 17 at New Delhi. Sources said issues of governance and execution model for tourism infrastructure which have a bearing on sanctuaries, national parks, tiger reserve areas and Ramsar sites will be taken up by the CEC. Similarly, tourism projects requiring forest and ESZ clearances and stake of the Tourism department in ESZ finalisation will also be discussed. The SC-constituted panel has also asked the principal chief conservator of forests (general), PCCF (wildlife) and Secretary, Tourism department to be take part in the meeting which will specifically discuss two critical infrastructure projects in the state. One of the contentious projects is the proposed construction of a two-lane national highway over Chilika lagoon by the National Highways Authority of India. The 7.740 km project, estimated at a cost of around Rs 526.08 crore, had prompted the expert appraisal committee (EAC) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to seek a cost-benefit analysis from the state government.
United News of India
17 minutes ago
- United News of India
Mahua Moitra moves SC against ECI's special electoral roll revision in Bihar
New Delhi/Kolkata , July 6 (UNI) Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) June 24 order, which mandates a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. The Krishnanagar MP has sought the quashing of the order, terming it "unconstitutional" and in "violation" of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 325, and 326 of the Constitution of India, as well as provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 'Just filed writ petition in Supreme Court challenging ECI notification to conduct SIR in Bihar & seeking a stay on conducting the same in other states including Bengal,' Moitra posted on her X handle. The petition argues that the ECI's directive introduces "extraneous and legally unsanctioned" requirements for retaining or including names in the electoral rolls, including the production of documents proving citizenship — such as proof of citizenship of one or both parents. In the petition filed through Advocate Neha Rathi, the Trinamool Congress MP argued that these requirements are not envisaged by Article 326 of the Constitution or by any provision of the RP Act, and they create arbitrary hurdles for eligible voters. On June 24, the EC announced a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections scheduled later this year. As part of the process, voters are required to submit one of 11 approved documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, to verify their date and place of birth. Those born before July 1, 1987, need only provide their own documents. However, those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, must also submit one parent's documents, while individuals born after December 2, 2004, must provide documents for both parents. According to the plea, the ECI order excludes commonly accepted identity proofs like Aadhaar and ration cards, disproportionately burdening voters — especially those in rural and marginalised communities. Current field reports from Bihar, the petition notes, suggest that lakhs of voters face imminent risk of disenfranchisement due to these stringent document requirements. 'This is the first time the Election Commission has initiated such an exercise, where voters already listed on the rolls and having voted in past elections are now being asked to revalidate their eligibility. She warns that the move may result in widespread disenfranchisement, undermining democratic principles and the conduct of free and fair elections,' Moitra argued in her petition. The petition also raises concerns about procedural inadequacies. It highlights that the order mandates the exclusion of names from the draft rolls if fresh enumeration forms are not submitted by July 25, 2025 — a deadline the petitioner calls arbitrary and unreasonable, especially for voters needing time to procure documents. The MP has additionally sought a direction to prevent the ECI from extending similar revision drives to other states. She claims the ECI has already issued instructions for the rollout of a similar exercise in West Bengal starting August 2025. Drawing parallels with the controversial National Register of Citizens (NRC), the plea underscores that the revision exercise appears to follow a similar structure and could disproportionately affect the economically and socially vulnerable populations. Interestingly enough, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Thursday strongly criticised the new guidelines under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, alleging they are intended to target West Bengal ahead of its 2026 Assembly elections, and indirectly accused the Election Commission of acting as an agent of the BJP. Criticising the Election Commission for taking the decision unilaterally, the chief minister had said, 'This is alarming for democracy. 'India became independent in 1947. Why are people born between 1987 and 2004 being targeted? I don't understand.' The West Bengal chief minister had claimed that the Election Commission could not take such steps without consulting political parties, underscoring that India is a democratic nation with a federal structure, and that no political party or elected government should be treated as subservient. 'Is this being done so that the younger generation cannot vote? How will the poor obtain their parents' documents? Is this NRC in disguise? Are they trying to implement NRC through this? Let them clearly state their intention. Is this what's happening in our country?' Mamata had questioned. UNI XC SSP
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
20 minutes ago
- First Post
SC writes to centre to vacate official CJI bungalow still occupied by ex-Chief Justice Chandrachud
The Supreme Court has asked the central government to urgently vacate the official residence meant for the Chief Justice of India, which is still occupied by former CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, nearly eight months after his retirement. read more The Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of asking the Union government to urgently vacate the official Chief Justice's residence, which is still occupied by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, reported the Hindustan Times. In a letter dated July 1, the Supreme Court wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), requesting that Bungalow No. 5 on Krishna Menon Marg in Lutyens' Delhi — the designated house for India's sitting CJI — be handed back immediately. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I am to request you to take possession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg, from Hon'ble Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud without any further delay as not only the permission that was granted for retention… has expired on 31st May, 2025, but also the period of six months provided in Rule 3B of the 2022 Rules has expired on 10th May, 2025,' the letter from a Supreme Court official to the MoHUA secretary stated. Justice Chandrachud, who served as the 50th CJI from November 2022 to November 2024, continues to live in the Type VIII bungalow nearly eight months after retiring. His two successors — Justices Sanjiv Khanna and the current CJI Bhushan R Gavai — have chosen not to move into the Krishna Menon Marg house and have stayed in their previous official residences instead. According to the letter, Justice Chandrachud had written on December 18, 2024, to then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, seeking permission to stay at 5 Krishna Menon Marg until April 30, 2025. He explained that although he had been allotted Bungalow No. 14 on Tughlak Road under Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022, renovations at the new house were delayed because of pollution-related construction bans under GRAP-IV.
