Latest news with #M.Jothiraman
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
23-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Union properties exempt from State taxes: HC
Article 285 (1) of the Constitution indicated that the properties of the Union should be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State. A property being put to commercial use would not make any difference, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by Madurai Multi Functional Complex against a Single Bench order. Madurai Corporation assessed the building for property tax and issued a demand notice in 2018 asking the petitioner to pay half-yearly tax to the tune of ₹10.07 lakh. Challenging it, a petition was filed. The Single Bench dismissed the petition. The appeal was preferred against the Single Bench order. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman observed that the land belonged to the railways. In order to develop the vacant lands owned by the railways, The Railways Act, 1989, was amended and The Railway Land Development Authority constituted. Section 4D(2)(ii) of the Act stated that development of the railway lands for commercial use was one of the functions of the authority. The Ministry of Railways incorporated Ircon Infrastructure and Services as their wholly owned subsidiary under the Companies Act, 1956. In 2013, a lease agreement was signed for the development of railway lands across India. Subsequently, Ircon Infrastructure and Services entered into a sub-lease agreement for 30 years with the petitioner in respect of the property. The Multi Functional Complex was constructed by Ircon Infrastructure on the plot of 2,700 sqm on the railway junction premises in Madurai. The building in its present shape was developed by the petitioner, the court observed. Merely because the property had been put to commercial use, it would not make any difference. A careful reading of the terms of the lease agreement, the sub-lease agreement and other materials clearly led to one conclusion, ie., not only the land but the building also belonged to the railways. In these circumstances, the question of levying property tax by the local body did not arise, the court observed and set aside the demand notice.
