Latest news with #J.NishaBanu
India.com
04-07-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Madras High Court Rejects Plea for NEET UG 2025 Re-Exam, Cites No Major Disruption
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking the re-conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2025 for students who appeared at examination centres affected by power cuts due to heavy rainfall on May 4. A Division Bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and M. Jothiraman upheld an earlier ruling by Justice C. Kumarappan, who had on June 6 refused to order a re-examination. The appeal was filed by a group of candidates who claimed that the power disruption during the examination created unfair conditions, putting them at a disadvantage compared to those who wrote the test under normal circumstances. The students argued that the absence of electricity led to a complete breakdown of examination conditions at some centres, and they had been denied an equal opportunity. However, Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan, appearing for the Centre, countered these claims by submitting CCTV footage from the affected centres. He pointed out that the examination halls had large glass windows that allowed ample natural light, and thus the impact of the power outage was minimal. He further stated that many candidates at those centres performed well despite the weather conditions, with one answering 179 out of 180 questions and others answering more than 140 questions, showing that their performance was not hampered. Sundaresan also informed the court that the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducted the NEET-UG, had formed an independent expert committee to assess the situation. The committee conducted field visits and statistical analysis of the candidates' performance at the affected centres. After a detailed review, the committee found no significant difference in the performance of students affected by the outage compared to others and concluded that a re-exam was not warranted. The High Court accepted the committee's findings and ruled that the judiciary should not interfere with the well-considered decision of the NTA unless it is proven to be arbitrary or unlawful. The Bench emphasised the need to maintain the integrity of large-scale competitive exams and noted that ordering a re-exam for a small group would disturb the entire merit list and affect over 22 lakh candidates who took the test. In its detailed judgment, the court stated, 'It is crucial to uphold the integrity of educational assessments. This court cannot overturn the NTA's decision, which was made after thorough field verification and an expert committee analysis, unless there is evidence of serious flaws or injustice.' With this, the court ruled that the appeal had no merit and should be dismissed, thereby affirming that the NEET-UG 2025 results will remain unchanged for all candidates, including those who appeared at centres affected by the May 4 rain and power outage.
The Hindu
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
No need to re-conduct NEET-UG 2025, affirms Division Bench of Madras High Court
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 3, 2025), affirmed a single judge's order against the re-conduct of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test - Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2025 for the students who appeared at centres which suffered power disruption due to heavy rains on May 4. The Division Bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and M. Jothiraman dismissed a writ appeal filed jointly by a group of candidates by concurring with the submissions of Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan that the power disruption had no significant impact in the performance of the petitioners in the test. The Bench upheld Justice C. Kumarappan's June 6 decision to not order re-conduct of NEET-UG 2025 and said, the single judge had rightly concluded that any court order for conduct of re-examination would severely affect the prospects of more than two million candidates. While challenging the single judge's order, the appellants had contended that there was complete breakdown of exam conditions at the centres where there was power outage due to heavy rainfall and therefore, the candidates in those centres had lost the advantage of writing the exams in conditions on a par with those in other centres. However, Mr. Sundaresan produced CCTV footage from the examination centres before the Division Bench to show that the examination halls had large windows with glass panes which allowed ambient daylight to enter the rooms and that there was highly negligible disruption due to the rains and power outage. He also pointed out one of the candidates in the examination centre in question had answered 179 out of 180 questions and five other candidates had answered 140 out of 180 questions. He said, there was no difference in the performance of candidates who suffered power outage at their centres and others. He further stated the NTA had constituted an independent expert committee for conducting an on-ground assessment to find out if there was any impact on candidates' performance due to the power outage at some centres and that the committee had conducted a statistical analysis before giving a categorical finding that there was no such impact. Finding force in his submissions, the Division Bench wrote: 'This court is of the opinion that it is crucial to uphold the integrity of the educational assessments in conducting examinations and this court cannot sit in an appellate jurisdiction against the considered decision of the speaking order passed by the NTA, after field verification of examination centres and statistical analysis by an independent expert committee with no affiliation to the NTA, unless such decision is demonstrated to be manifestly arbitrary, mala fide or illegal.' Taking note that as many as 22 lakh candidates had appeared for NEET-UG 2025 and that the entire rank list would get disrupted if a re-examination was ordered for select candidates, the Bench said: 'Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned (under challenge) and the writ appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.'
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Thiruparankundram hill: Madras High Court judges take differing views, place them before Chief Justice
After two judges of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took differing views on petitions pertaining to Tirupparankundram hill, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. A Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy took different views after hearing six petitions, which sought various directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance. Justice J. Nisha Banu observed it was an admitted fact that the hill housed the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute regarding the rights of the Temple Devasthanam was adjudicated by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council, which affirmed that the whole of Tirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belong to Lord Murugan. The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship but also had defined the rights. Since the matter has attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the court observed it was not inclined to interfere with the same, with a view to preserving interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence and upholding the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people. Given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal sacrifice being an established religious practice was observed not only in the dargah but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore, it could not be selectively banned, the court said. Now, there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. The dargah was located on the southern side peak of the hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple are situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinge upon the sacred spaces of another, the judge observed and directed the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity. However, Justice S. Srimathy directed that the Tirupparankundram hill should continue to be called as the Tirupparankundram hill and should not be called either Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundru. Any quarrying of the hill was prohibited.. The judge observed as far as the animal sacrifice was concerned the claim of the dargah was that the Kandoori was a form of animal sacrifice which was practised for long. If the dargah had followed the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice there would be some evidence to prove it. The dargah had not produced any evidence. The dargah was directed to approach the civil court to establish the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid prayers and other Islamic festivals was prevailing prior to the 1920 original suit. However, the dargah was allowed to do the Santhanakodu festival. Since nobody was allowed to Kasi Viswanathar Temple and Sikkandar Dargah after 6 p.m., electricity connection was not necessary. The hill would be damaged if road, drinking water supply and toilet were granted, hence the same should not be granted. However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and duly instruct the devotees who visit Kasi Vishwanathar Temple to carry water on their own. Likewise, the dargah should carry water manually and also duly instruct the devotees to carry water on their own. For any construction or renovation work at the dargah, the Managing Trustee should approach the Archaeological Department. The authorities were directed to allow the department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, the dargah, the temple and note all physical features along with measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and a report should be submitted to the court, the judge directed. 'In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,' the court directed.
The Hindu
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Tirupparankundram hill: Judges take differing views on pleas, place them before CJ
After two judges of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took differing views on petitions pertaining to Tirupparankundram hill, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. A Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy took different views after hearing six petitions, which sought various directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance. Justice J. Nisha Banu observed it was an admitted fact that the hill housed the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute regarding the rights of the Temple Devasthanam was adjudicated by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council, which affirmed that the whole of Tirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belong to Lord Murugan. The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship but also had defined the rights. Since the matter has attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the court observed it was not inclined to interfere with the same, with a view to preserving interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence and upholding the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people. Given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal sacrifice being an established religious practice was observed not only in the dargah but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore, it could not be selectively banned, the court said. Now, there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. The dargah was located on the southern side peak of the hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple are situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinge upon the sacred spaces of another, the judge observed and directed the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity. However, Justice S. Srimathy directed that the Tirupparankundram hill should continue to be called as the Tirupanrankundram hill and should not be called either Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundru. Any quarrying of the hill was prohibited.. The judge observed as far as the animal sacrifice was concerned the claim of the dargah was that the Kandoori was a form of animal sacrifice which was practised for long. If the dargah had followed the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice there would be some evidence to prove it. The dargah had not produced any evidence. The dargah was directed to approach the civil court to establish the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid prayers and other Islamic festivals was prevailing prior to the 1920 original suit. However, the dargah was allowed to do the Santhanakodu festival. Since nobody was allowed to Kasi Viswanathar Temple and Sikkandar Dargah after 6 p.m., electricity connection was not necessary. The hill would be damaged if road, drinking water supply and toilet were granted, hence the same should not be granted. However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and duly instruct the devotees who visit Kasi Vishwanathar Temple to carry water on their own. Likewise, the dargah should carry water manually and also duly instruct the devotees to carry water on their own. For any construction or renovation work at the dargah, the Managing Trustee should approach the Archaeological Department. The authorities were directed to allow the department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, the dargah, the temple and note all physical features along with measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and a report should be submitted to the court, the judge directed. 'In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,' the court directed.
The Hindu
10-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
HC dismisses plea to publish NIRF rankings after comparing institutions' and govt.'s data
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petition that sought a direction to the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) to publish the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranking after comparing and verifying the data submitted by institutions with the data in government records and to disclose the calculation method. The court was hearing the petition filed by C. Chellamuthu of Oddanchatram in Dindigul district, who claimed that the NIRF ranking was totally without any basis and it was misleading the students. He said the NIRF was launched by the NBA on the directions of the Ministry of Education for evaluating higher education institutions in the country. The NBA published the NIRF rankings of colleges every year, he said. The rankings were based on methodologies that were not disclosed and did not reflect the genuine academic excellence of the institutions. The evaluation was flawed, and the rankings were awarded based on the data received from the institutions. The data submitted was manipulated. There was no transparency or accountability regarding the data submitted by the institutions, the petitioner alleged. He said instead of collecting data from government websites, institutions were invited to submit data online and malpractices were predominantly committed by private institutions. The Centre told the Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy that a separate scientific method, prescribed by an expert body, was being followed. The court observed that upon perusal of the materials available on record, it was seen that the petition was premature. There was no data before the court to compare and determine the correctness of the rankings. The court was not inclined to entertain the petition, it observed, adding that if the petitioner was aggrieved after the publication of the list, he might challenge it with the evidence.
