Latest news with #StateofUttarPradesh
The Print
a day ago
- Politics
- The Print
NMC asks medical colleges to publish course-wise fees, stipend details online
The public notice mentioned that the Supreme Court, in its April 29, 2025 judgment titled State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Miss Bhavna Tiwari and Ors., has, among other issues, addressed the matter of non-disclosure of fees by the college authorities. In a public notice, the NMC said non-compliance will result in the issuance of a show-cause notice, imposition of financial penalties, withdrawal of course recognition and suspension of admissions. New Delhi, Jul 14 (PTI) The National Medical Commission (NMC) has directed all medical colleges to publish the complete course-wise fee structure and details of stipends paid to interns, junior residents, and senior residents on their official websites. The court has mandated that all private and deemed universities must disclose detailed information regarding tuition fees, hostel charges, caution deposits, and all miscellaneous charges at the pre-counselling stage. The Supreme Court, in Writ Petition No. 730 of 2022 (Abhishek Yadav and Ors. vs. Army College of Medical Sciences and Ors.), has also issued interim directions in relation to grievances concerning nonpayment of stipends and illegal imposition of internship fees, the notice read. In pursuance of ensuring transparency and protecting students from hidden or arbitrary fee demands, as well as addressing concerns regarding non-payment of stipends, the NMC has taken various measures in line with existing regulations and judicial mandates, it said. 'Regulation 4.3 of the PGMER, 2023 mandates that medical colleges must disclose the fee for each course while entering data in the seat matrix, failing which the seat shall not be counted. Therefore, collection of any undisclosed or unapproved fees shall be treated as unauthorised,' it stated. The provisions also require payment of stipends to interns as determined by the appropriate authority applicable to the institution or university concerned. 'In compliance with the above-mentioned regulations and court directions, all medical colleges/institutions under the purview of the NMC are hereby directed to publish the complete course-wise fee structure and the stipend paid to interns/JR/SR etc. on their official websites,' the notice stated. For uniform disclosure and monitoring, the NMC said that a Google Form link has been created by it, through which institutions must submit the complete course-wise fee structure and details regarding stipend payment to MBBS interns, junior residents, and senior residents. Many medical colleges are sharing the fee structure and stipend details on the Intra MCC portal; however, the same is not comprehensive, the NMC said. 'These measures are part of NMC's commitment to fostering fair, ethical, and transparent practices in medical education across the country. Therefore, all NMC-approved medical colleges/institutions are instructed to complete the Google Form linked below within seven days from the date of issue of this Public Notice on the NMC website. Non-compliance may lead to regulatory action,' it said. PTI PLB RHL This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Indian Express
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Opinion The burden of submitting criminal past of the accused shouldn't be on individuals
The Supreme Court in a recent order (Munnesh v State of Uttar Pradesh) asserted that criminal antecedents should be disclosed compulsorily in any Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking bail. The Court highlighted how bail applications are being filed (increasingly so) without disclosing the criminal antecedents of the person seeking bail. The order further directed that any person who is seeking bail in the apex court must mandatorily disclose, in the synopsis of the petition, if they have knowledge of their involvement in any criminal case. Another aspect that has been brought to the fore by the Court is that the SLPs, which lack these puzzle pieces, are often completed by the state through their counter-affidavits. The above order reflects how oblivious courts are to the ground reality. It can be exceptionally difficult for a person behind bars to know their criminal antecedents or the stage of their pendency. For instance, in the recent case involving Kunal Kamra, there were five FIRs registered — four of them were lodged in Khar police station, and one was in Dombivli. Now, it is easier for a public figure like Kamra to know that there are five FIRs lodged against him, but the same cannot be said for a person who doesn't have such resources at his disposal. Take, for example, cases where the bail applications are filed by the family or the pairokar of the person in jail. These family members who genuinely do not possess any information about the criminal history of their relative, pass on to their lawyers this 'hollow information', resulting in a bail application having no mention of the criminal antecedents, which, as per the above order, will lead to a dismissal of the bail application. What is important for the courts to realise is that a citizen cannot be burdened with the responsibility to find out the details of all the cases registered against him while behind bars. It is also unfair to shift this responsibility upon his family members or pairokar. The courts now have the right to dismiss such applications without having to distinguish false disclosure from genuine incapacity to know one's criminal history. This mandate of disclosing one's history is not wrong per se, but the burden for this should be cast on the state, not the other way around. It is the state that can reveal an entire list of cases, if any, against a person. The precedent being set by the Supreme Court flies in the face of the principle of 'bail is the rule and jail the exception'. Also Read | SC must reconsider timeline for the President According to a report by the National Crime Records Bureau published in 2015, the majority of under-trial prisoners are illiterate or semi-illiterate. They require major resources and additional support to understand the court process. The new order further complicates this process for them. Lord Russell of Killowen, Chief Justice, in his address to the grand jury at Salisbury Assizes in 1899, said: '….it was the duty of the Magistrate to admit accused persons to bail, wherever practicable, unless there were strong grounds for supposing that such persons would not appear to take their trial. It was not the poorer classes who did not appear, for their circumstances were such as to tie them to the place where they carried on their work. They had not the golden wings with which to fly from justice.' This unawareness cannot be put in the same box as being ignorant of the law. Interestingly, in the above-mentioned order it is apparent that the Court was apprised about the criminal history of the applicant only after the state pointed out the same in their counter affidavit. A step towards placing the burden of such a responsibility on the state would help in the functioning of the courts and those behind bars.
