Medical aspirants, parents write to Maharashtra govt; oppose EWS quota in private medical colleges
The content of the letters is more or less the same, with the mailers citing Supreme Court rulings that stated seats can be reserved for the EWS category without affecting seats of any other category.
'…there was a commitment by (the) Central Government to increase seats by 25 per cent to implement this 10 per cent EWS quota. So how is your Government not complying with the Central rule and Supreme Court verdict?' the letters stated.
The letters further said, 'Students have to burn midnight oil to crack these entrance exams and sometimes have to repeat multiple times to reach that score of a suitable seat. This decision of yours puts the middle-class general category students at a disadvantage, who are unable to obtain (an) EWS certificate due to various reasons.'
Aspirants and parents claimed that the reduction in the number of merit-based seats due to the implementation of the EWS quota will result in a steep increase in cut-off scores.
The emails, with the subject line – 'Request to Revoke 10 per cent EWS in Private Medical Colleges of Maharashtra' – will also be sent to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, and both Deputy Chief Ministers Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar, among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Only 1.35% central government staff opt for Unified Pension Scheme. Here's why
A Right to Information (RTI) response obtained by India Today has revealed that the migration rate from the National Pension System (NPS) to the recently introduced Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) among Central Government employees remains exceptionally of July 20, 2025, only 30,989 employees have chosen UPS out of approximately 23 lakh (2.3 million) employees enrolled in NPS, marking a participation rate of just 1.35%.advertisementThis data—provided by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) to India Today—offers critical insight into the cautious response of government employees to this flagship pension initiative. Separately, in a written reply to the Lok Sabha on July 28, the Finance Ministry informed that as of July 20, a total of 31,555 employees had opted for the THE TEPID RESPONSE?Despite high expectations from policymakers and repeated emphasis on UPS's assured benefits, just 1.35% of NPS-covered employees have chosen to switch. The remaining eligible staff seem either content with NPS's flexibility and tax perks or are skeptical of the new hybrid the deadline for opting into UPS was June 30, 2025. However, in light of subdued participation, the government quietly extended the window by three months, pushing it to September 30, 2025. Employees who do not opt in by this extended deadline will remain with NPS, with no further chance of asked why Central government employees are not embracing the new scheme, S. B. Yadav, Secretary General of the Confederation of Central Government Employees & Workers, told India Today:'Employees comparatively prefer OPS; they are inclined towards that only. They want a non-contributory, defined, statutory pension plan.'His remarks reflect a longstanding sentiment among government workers who see defined-benefit systems like the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) as more secure and predictable, especially in uncertain economic AK Bhagi, President of the Delhi University Teachers' Association (DUTA) and a member of the RSS-affiliated National Democratic Teachers' Front (NDTF), said the exclusion of autonomous institutions like Delhi University from the UPS framework has further eroded trust: 'The Government of India has not extended the option of the University Pension Scheme (UPS) to University of Delhi employees, citing its status as an autonomous body.""Nor has it provided the option to switch to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in the event of an employee's demise—a benefit available to Central Government employees. DUTA demands that all Government of India notifications related to pension be implemented for DU employees as well. We have consistently raised the demand for OPS to be extended to employees of both government and autonomous institutions," he added. OPS vs NPS vs UPSadvertisementThe OPS, discontinued for new entrants in 2004, promised a fixed pension equalling 50% of an employee's last drawn salary. It required no employee contribution and was fully government-funded. However, the mounting pension bill led to its replacement by the NPS, a market-linked, defined-contribution scheme under which employees contribute 10% of their salary while the government adds 14%.The UPS attempts to merge the two models. It retains employee contributions but guarantees a pension equivalent to 50% of the average basic pay drawn in the final 12 months of service. A floor of 10,000 per month is set for those with at least ten years of service. The scheme also includes inflation-indexing to preserve real these assurances, the transition to UPS has found few CLARIFICATIONIn response to India Today's queries, the PFRDA clarified that it does not maintain state-wise, month-wise, or department-wise data on UPS adoption. It also confirmed that it does not separately track opt-in numbers for officers from the All-India Services, such as IAS, IPS, and IFS cadres. This lack of granular transparency makes it difficult to assess how specific departments or senior officials are responding to the just two months remaining before the final deadline lapses, the fate of the Unified Pension Scheme hangs in the balance. While it was designed to bridge the gap between fiscal responsibility and employee demands for security, the initial numbers suggest it has yet to earn the trust of the very constituency it was meant to reassure. Whether the scheme can gain momentum or joins a long list of policy reforms that failed to scale remains to be seen.- Ends
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana HC disposes of PIL seeking commission for defence personnel, expresses hope for Centre's consideration
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the constitution of a national commission for serving and retired defence personnel and their dependents. The court expressed hope that the Central Government would consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders, if necessary. The petition filed by Tamanna Swami, a 20-year-old law student at the Army Institute of Law, Mohali, had sought a writ of mandamus directing the Ministries of Defence and Home Affairs to establish a National Commission for Defence Personnel, with statutory powers similar to other commissions such as National Commission for Women and National Commissions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes, to address grievances, recommend reforms, and provide redress to affected families. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry recorded that the grievance was that defence personnel lacked an equivalent redressal mechanism despite facing unique service-related hardships and systemic vulnerabilities. The Bench observed that there was 'no enabling statutory provision' under the current legal framework of the Central or State Governments to constitute such a commission. However, taking note of the representations already submitted by the petitioner to the authorities in 2022, the court said, 'Without commenting on the merits of the petition, we dispose of the present petition with the hope and expectation that the grievance raised by the petitioner shall be looked into by the Central Government and that appropriate orders, if necessary, shall be passed in this regard.' Swami, daughter of serving Army officer Colonel Anil Dev Swami (VSM), had filed the PIL invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Her petition stated that India's 41 lakh-strong defence community, including 15 lakh serving and 26 lakh retired personnel, faced a host of administrative, legal, financial, and social issues without a dedicated forum to address them. Among the key incidents cited in her plea was the alleged harassment faced by her mother, Uma Berwal Swami, a senior manager with the Central Bank of India. According to the petition, Uma invested ₹60 lakh in a Chandigarh real estate project, but the builder repeatedly delayed handover of the allotted plot. When she pursued the matter, she was allegedly coerced into signing revised terms under pressure and was humiliated in front of the builder's staff and security personnel. The family's inability to pursue the matter effectively was attributed to her husband's posting in Leh and the absence of a statutory body to safeguard the rights of defence families. Swami also cited the custodial violence case involving Colonel Pushpinder Singh Baath in Patiala in March 2025 as a recent example of the institutional vulnerability of serving personnel and the lack of systemic safeguards. The petition was listed multiple times over the last four months. On April 4, 2025, the petitioner sought an adjournment. On April 9, she again requested more time to prepare, which was granted. On April 30, the court directed her to file an affidavit with supporting material. On May 28, her counsel informed the bench that she was facing personal difficulty, leading to another deferment. The case was finally disposed of on July 29.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
'CJI not a Post Office, has duty to act on misconduct': SC reserves verdict in Justice Yashwant Varma case
New Delhi, Jul 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the in-house inquiry report and the removal recommendation made by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, even as Members of Parliament in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha formally initiated the impeachment process against the Allahabad High Court judge. The Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, has challenged the in-house inquiry report indicting him in the infamous cash-at-residence controversy, as well as the recommendation by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister seeking his removal. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih, after a detailed hearing, reserved the matter for judgment. The Court also took up a separate petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma in connection with the incident. At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, presented the core of the constitutional challenge. He contended that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 fully governs the procedure for the removal of a judge, and that the in-house inquiry mechanism, being an administrative process, could not trigger or influence impeachment proceedings under Article 124 of the Constitution. Sibal argued that the recommendation of the CJI for removal, if based solely on such a report, would carry undue weight in Parliament due to the high constitutional position of the CJI, thereby compromising the independence of the legislature's decision-making process. Justice Datta, however, countered that the in-house mechanism had legal grounding in Supreme Court precedents such as K. Veeraswami and Ravichandran Iyer, and that it was recognized as valid law under Article 141. He clarified that the clause 'otherwise' in Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act allowed for in-house proceedings and administrative steps such as withdrawal of judicial work from a judge. 'The Chief Justice of India is not just a post office. He has responsibilities as the leader of the judiciary. If he receives credible information regarding misconduct, he must act and inform the President and Prime Minister,' Justice Datta remarked. The Bench repeatedly asked why Justice Varma had not challenged the in-house procedure earlier. Justice Datta pointedly said:'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. You participated in the inquiry and approached the Court only after the findings went against you.' The Court agreed with Sibal's concern regarding the leak of video footage showing bundles of burning cash during the March 14 fire incident at Justice Varma's Delhi residence. 'We are with you on this. It should not have been leaked,' Justice Datta said, though he added, 'But what turns on it?' Sibal maintained that such footage being uploaded on the Supreme Court's website lent it undue credibility, leading to political commentary and a media narrative that prejudiced his client's position. Justice Datta noted that Justice Varma never sought judicial redress over the leak or asked for the videos to be removed from public domain. The Court emphasized that the in-house report was merely a preliminary fact-finding exercise, not equivalent to a full-fledged inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The recommendation of the CJI to the President, the Court said, was advisory in nature. 'The CJI's report can lead to withdrawal of judicial work, but Parliament is not bound to act on it. It is only an advice. Someone advising and someone initiating removal are two different things,' Justice Datta explained. Sibal stressed that since the in-house process lacked cross-examination, codified rules of evidence, and procedural safeguards, it could not form the basis of initiating impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma is under scrutiny following a fire on March 14 at his official residence in Delhi, during which firefighters allegedly discovered a large stash of currency notes. A video of cash burning was circulated, creating a public uproar. Following this, CJI Khanna formed a three-judge in-house inquiry panel comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka). The committee examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma and his daughter, and evaluated digital evidence. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family had control over the location where cash was found. Since no satisfactory explanation was given beyond blanket denials and claims of conspiracy, the committee recommended action. Judicial work was withdrawn, and Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court. CJI Khanna forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, in a separate petition, sought registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. The Court, however, questioned him on how he accessed the confidential report and directed him to file an affidavit disclosing his source. The Bench noted that Nedumpara had not even approached the police before moving the writ petition. 'You can't come straight to us without filing a complaint before the police. If police don't act, you can approach the Magistrate. But you haven't done any of this,' Justice Datta told him. Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Rakesh Dwivedi were also present to argue for Justice Varma, but the Bench declined to hear more than one senior counsel per party. Justice Datta reiterated that the petitioner's grievance stemmed from a process that was only a preliminary inquiry. Since no official action of removal had yet taken place, the petition was premature in challenging the CJI's recommendation. 'The in-house process is not a removal. Parliament is not bound by it. And when the report is not even treated as evidence, how can the petitioner be aggrieved?' the Bench asked. After completing the hearings from both sides, the Bench reserved its judgment on the matter. Last week, Members of Parliament in both the Houses initiated circulation of an impeachment notice against Justice Varma with the requisite signatures, following the in-House report and the controversy. Today the Members of Parliament in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha formally initiated the impeachment process against the Allahabad High Court judge. UNI SNG AAB
