Latest news with #P.S.Narasimha
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC upholds Himachal Pradesh's demand for 18% free power from JSW plant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Himachal Pradesh government's demand for 18 per cent free electricity supply from JSW Hydro Energy 's 1,045-megawatt Karcham Wangtoo hydroelectric power plant in the state. While setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court 's order for allowing maximum 13 per cent of free electricity to the state government, a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the CERC Regulations 2019 do not prohibit JSW from supplying free power beyond 13 per cent to the State, and the Implementation Agreement does not stand overridden by the operation of these Regulations,' the top court said. 'Once the Regulation does not prohibit the supply of free power beyond 13 per cent, JSW cannot rely on it to wriggle out of its contractual obligations . Such an interpretation is necessary to recognise and enforce the generating company's freedom of contract, which includes its choice of business dealings,' the apex court said, adding that the Regulatory Commissions, APTEL, and the courts must enforce these contractual obligations and ensure that their interpretation of regulations does not allow the party to circumvent and breach its contractual undertakings when the same is not intended by the regulation itself. As per agreements executed between JSW Hydro and the Himachal Pradesh government, the former's plant was supposed to supply free power at 18 per cent of the net generation for 28 years to the state after the completion of 12 years of commercial operations of the project that commenced in 2011. However, CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019 capped the maximum free supply at 13 per cent of the net generation on the ground that contractual agreements, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the applicable regulations, shall stand overridden by their operation. The HC had accepted the CERC's findings and directed that the implementation agreement stood modified. Coming down of JSW for its contradictory positions, Justice Narasimha said that the company cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, or blow hot and cold at the same time to secure relief under the law. 'The regulator has the expertise, specialisation, and institutional memory to conduct such an interpretative exercise to further the objective of the regulatory regime and systematically lay down legal principles. In this light, the High Court should not have entered into the domain of interpreting these Regulations which deal with tariff determination, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the CERC,' the SC said.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- 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.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC upholds Himachal's demand for 18% free electricity from JSW Hydro Energy's Karcham Wangtoo plant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Himachal Pradesh government's demand for 18% free electricity supply from JSW Hydro Energy 's 1,045-megawatt Karcham Wangtoo hydroelectric power plant in the state. While setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order for allowing maximum 13% of free electricity to the state government, a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the CERC Regulations 2019 do not prohibit JSW from supplying free power beyond 13% to the State, and the Implementation Agreement does not stand overridden by the operation of these Regulations,' the top court said. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Technology MCA Healthcare Public Policy Data Science Data Science Artificial Intelligence Others CXO Cybersecurity Data Analytics Digital Marketing healthcare others Finance Leadership Management Design Thinking Operations Management Project Management Degree Product Management MBA PGDM Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks MIT xPRO CERT-MIT XPRO Building AI Prod India Starts on undefined Get Details 'Once the Regulation does not prohibit the supply of free power beyond 13%, JSW cannot rely on it to wriggle out of its contractual obligations. Such an interpretation is necessary to recognise and enforce the generating company's freedom of contract, which includes its choice of business dealings,' the apex court said, adding that the Regulatory Commissions, APTEL, and the courts must enforce these contractual obligations and ensure that their interpretation of regulations does not allow the party to circumvent and breach its contractual undertakings when the same is not intended by the regulation itself. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo As per agreements executed between JSW Hydro and the Himachal Pradesh government, the former's plant was supposed to supply free power at 18% of the net generation for 28 years to the state after the completion of 12 years of commercial operations of the project that commenced in 2011. However, CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019 capped the maximum free supply at 13% of the net generation on the ground that contractual agreements, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the applicable regulations, shall stand overridden by their operation. The HC had accepted the CERC's findings and directed that the implementation agreement stood modified. Live Events Coming down of JSW for its contradictory positions, Justice Narasimha said that the company cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, or blow hot and cold at the same time to secure relief under the law. 'The regulator has the expertise, specialisation, and institutional memory to conduct such an interpretative exercise to further the objective of the regulatory regime and systematically lay down legal principles. In this light, the High Court should not have entered into the domain of interpreting these Regulations which deal with tariff determination, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the CERC,' the SC said.
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- 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.
Hindustan Times
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC rejects plea to stay NEET-UG 2025 counselling over alleged answer-key error
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition to stay the counselling in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2025 examination due to an alleged error in the answer key released by the National Testing Agency (NTA) last month. The petitioner has scored 565 marks in the NEET-UG 2025 examination, securing an all-India rank of 6,783 and a general category rank of 3,195. (Representative photo) A petition was filed by NEET-UG candidate Shivam Gandhi Raina, pointing out that one of the answers was incorrect as per the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook of Class 11 and has not been rectified by the NTA. Observing that the court will not interfere with a national-level examination that 'involves the careers of thousands of students,' a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan said, 'You are right, there could be multiple answers, despite that, we will not interfere in a national level examination.' Senior advocate R. Balasubramanian, appearing for the candidate, said that it involves the career of a student and that by rectifying the error, he stands to gain five marks that might secure admission to a better medical college. He further pointed out that last year, when similar flaws were brought to the notice of the top court in the answer key of NEET, a committee of experts drawn from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) had examined the alleged errors, and based on their recommendation, results were revised. Also Read: NEET UG 2025: Over 12 lakh candidates qualified for MBBS admission 'This involves the careers of thousands of students... In the other matter last year, the matter was taken up that led to reforms. There were widespread grievances about the discrepancies and shortcomings over the conduct of the examination that the court had to tackle. We cannot tackle individual examinations. We need to tackle larger reforms,' the bench said. The court further observed that the case presented last year involved a number of students, while the present case is an individual grievance. It also informed the petitioner that a similar challenge to the NEET-UG answer key was rejected by the court on Thursday. The petitioner, who scored 565 marks in the NEET-UG 2025 examination—securing an all-India rank of 6,783 and a general category rank of 3,195—stated that he had approached the NTA, after the release of the provisional answer key on June 3, to highlight an error. However, the same error was retained in the final results.
