New rank holders as KEAM revised rank list is out
As anticipated, the number of toppers from the State Board saw a sharp decline. Only 21 students from the State Board made it to the top 100 ranks, down from 43 on the original list published under the now-invalidated formula. The toppers' list also saw significant reshuffling.
Joshua Jacob Thomas from Thiruvananthapuram emerged the top ranker with a score of 588.5773 out of 600. He had previously held the fifth rank with 587.6773 marks. Hari Kishan Baiju of Ernakulam retained his second position, while Emil Iype Sacharia (Thiruvananthapuram), Adyl Zayaan (Kozhikode), Adhvaith Ayinippilly (Karnataka), and Ananya Rajeev (Karnataka) secured ranks three to six respectively.
John Sinoj of Ernakulam, who topped the original list, slipped to seventh place after his score was revised downward by 0.7812 marks.
In the reserved categories, Hridin S. Biju of Kasaragod and Sabarinath K.S. of Kottayam secured the highest ranks among Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, respectively.
Of the 86,549 students who appeared for KEAM 2025, 76,230 qualified, and 67,505 were included in the final engineering rank list.
Earlier in the day, Higher Education Minister R. Bindu had the government would accept the Kerala High Court upholding the quashing of this year's results and would publish a revised rank-list at the earliest.
Upholding a Single Bench's order, the Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed that it found no ground to interfere with the Single Bench order which had directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to publish the rank-list in accordance with the prospectus which had been issued in February.
The Division Bench added that the government had acted beyond the recommendations that had been made by its own expert committee, on which basis the earlier prospectus was prepared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16-07-2025
- The Hindu
SC won't stay Kerala HC order to publish revised KEAM rank list
The Supreme Court on Wednesday did not immediately stay a July 10 Kerala High Court order directing the State to publish the revised rank list of the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical Examination (KEAM) 2025. Adopting a cautionary note, the top court said it did not want to create a sense of uncertainty among students. A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, instead, issued notice to the State and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on a petition challenging the High Court decision. The High Court had directed Kerala to revert to the standardisation formula followed in the original prospectus of KEAM 2025. The apex court listed the next hearing after four weeks. The court did not budge even though petitioners requested an earlier date of hearing for the reason that admission procedures would be over by August 14 as per the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) deadline. Kerala won't file appeal Meanwhile, the State of Kerala informed it was not filing an appeal against the High Court order. The top court had, on July 15, asked Kerala to revert on whether it planned to file an appeal. Appearing for Kerala, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta said the State proposed to implement the necessary reforms in KEAM's standardisation formula the next year in order to level any bumps in the playing field between CBSE and State syllabus candidates. 'We propose to make the change next year,' Mr. Gupta said. Appearing for a group of CBSE students who had filed a caveat in the case, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Aljo Joseph said the State must also reflect on why State syllabus students were lagging behind their CBSE counterparts year after year. 'Perhaps they need to have a relook of the curriculum. There has to be an introspection by Kerala and other States,' Mr. Ramachandran said. Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Zulfiker Ali P.S., representing the State syllabus students who appealed against the High Court order, countered that the State's decision to amend the standardisation formula was a result of such an 'introspection'. The amended formula had been devised to end the disparity between CBSE and State syllabus candidates for KEAM. Unfair advantage The State had constituted the Standardisation Review Committee in April after exam authorities had flagged that the 1:1:1 ratio for marks obtained in 10+2 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry gave CBSE students an unfair advantage over the State Board students. 'This had meant the State students would see their marks drop while the CBSE students would have their marks soar,' Mr. Bhushan said. On July 1, the State, taking into consideration the committee report and the suggestions given by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, had decided to amend the ratio for subject marks in KEAM 2025 to 5:3:2 instead of the earlier 1:1:1. It had gone on to publish the KEAM rank list the very same day. On July 10, the High Court had directed the reversion to 1:1:1 as provided in the original prospectus. 'The State government was entirely within its right to make the amendment. It was done on the basis of a report by an expert committee. The High Court had intervened despite a consistent stand by this court to not intervene in policy matters unless they were found to be arbitrary or discriminatory to students,' Mr. Bhushan argued. Mr. Gupta said the State was entirely with Mr. Bhushan on merits, and assured reforms for next academic year.
The Hindu
15-07-2025
- The Hindu
Sinking of MSC Elsa 3: Kerala HC admits PILs seeking compensation
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has admitted public interest litigations (PILs) that were filed seeking compensation for fishers and others affected by the sinking of MSC Elsa 3, a Liberia-flagged container vessel that was carrying hazardous and other cargo, off the Alappuzha coast on May 25. The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji posted the case for hearing in September, considering that a Single Bench is hearing an Admiralty suit filed by the State government seeking ₹9,351 crore as compensation for marine and coastal pollution, loss of fishers' livelihood and the 'remediation' measures following to the ship's sinking. However, the petitioners can approach the Division Bench in instances where directions to the government, the Director General of Shipping or to the Pollution Control Board are needed, the court said. The PILs had been filed by T.N. Pratapan, former MP and chairperson of the Kerala Fishermen Coordination Committee, among others. Another PIL was filed by Charles George, social activist and president of Kerala Fish Workers Coordination Committee and of Swathanthra Matsya Thozhilali Union, seeking $134 million as environmental security deposit following sinking of the vessel. The counsel for MSC, which operated the vessel, said that the inclement weather has affected efforts to salvage goods and oil from the sunk vessel.
The Hindu
15-07-2025
- The Hindu
Supreme Court decides to wait a day for Kerala government's take on KEAM 2025 revised rank list
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15, 2025) gave the Kerala government 24 hours to inform if it intends to appeal a High Court direction to publish the revised rank list of the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical Examination (KEAM) 2025. A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha made it clear that the court's interference would be minimal and based on legal principles and not on facts. 'We are very clear... We are not going to interfere in any existing selection, appointment processes. The country is plagued with this problem of uncertainty as every exam, every appointment comes under challenge and gets delayed. We will consider this case on principles, but so far as facts are concerned, we will not interfere,' Justice Narasimha addressed the parties in the court room. Scheduling the case for hearing for July 16, the court instructed Kerala State counsel C.K. Sasi to take instructions from the government and apprise the Bench. Original prospectus The original prospectus for KEAM 2025, which was held between April 22-30, had prescribed that the marks obtained in 10+2 in respect of Maths, Physics and Chemistry would be in the ratio of 1:1:1. However, the Kerala government had constituted a Standardisation Review Committee on April 9 to study the method and formula used to calculate standardised/normalised marks of KEAM-2025 and to suggest any changes. The committee had submitted its report on June 2. Following which, the State, taking into consideration the committee report and the suggestions given by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, decided to amend the ratio for subject marks in KEAM 2025. On July 1, the State ordered that the marks obtained in 10+2 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry would be taken in the ratio of 5:3:2 instead of the earlier 1:1:1. The existing 50:50 ratio for marks obtained in the entrance examination and 10+2 Board examination would continue. The State published the KEAM rank list the same day. On July 10, the High Court directed the reversion to 1:1:1 as provided in the original prospectus. The High Court had reasoned that the modification to the standardisation formula was made belatedly, after the conclusion of the entrance examination and merely an hour prior to the publication of the rank list. The High Court had found the timing both arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The revised rank list was published on July 11. Appearing for the State syllabus students on Tuesday, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Zulfiker Ali P.S., argued that the State was empowered to make the amendments to original prospectus to create a 'level playing field for candidates of the State Board and the CBSE'. 'The old standardisation formula [prior to the amendment to the original prospectus] was disproportionate and disadvantageous to the majority of students studying under the State syllabus in government schools. It is important to note that in Kerala government school students predominately come from middle and lower-income backgrounds,' Mr. Bhushan contended. Justice Narasimha remarked the 'new rule balances much better than the earlier one' but questioned the timing of the modification to the standardisation formula in July, months after the KEAM exam and just before the declaration of the results. 'The issue is we do not doubt the new rule, but when you introduce a new policy... can you do it all of a sudden? Do you not have to declare it first and say it will be implemented from next year…' Justice Narasimha asked advocate Bhushan. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Aljo Joseph, on a caveat for CBSE students, highlighted that the formula was revised an hour before the publication of the rank list on July 1. Mr. Bhushan said the problem of disparity between the State syllabus students and their CBSE counterparts had been flagged by the Controller of Examinations in 2024 itself. He said the High Court order had affected a large number of students in Kerala while seeking urgent relief.
