Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday refused to entertain a <keyword id="19957723" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="PIL" source="keywords">PIL</keyword> challenging the government's decision to cancel the UGC-NET examination following alleged <keyword id="20713483" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="question-paper-leak" source="keywords">question paper leak</keyword>. A bench comprising <keyword id="15469242" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-D-Y-Chandrachud" source="Orion">Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud</keyword> and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, however, said the dismissal of the PIL does not amount to a decision on the merits of the PIL as it was filed by a lawyer and not by aggrieved students. "Why are you (lawyer) coming? Let the students come here themselves," the CJI told the lawyer, adding "while declining the above PIL, we express nothing on merits". The bench asked advocate Ujjawal Gaur, who has filed the PIL as a petitioner, to focus on some legal matters and leave such issues for aggrieved persons. The plea was filed against the decision of the <keyword id="20018491" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Union-education-ministry" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Union education ministry" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Union education ministry">Union education ministry</keyword> and the <keyword id="19904021" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Testing-Agency" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Testing Agency" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="National Testing Agency">National Testing Agency</keyword> to cancel the <keyword id="21469389" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="UGC-NET-exam" source="keywords">UGC-NET exam</keyword> following inputs that its integrity may have been compromised. The ministry on June 19 had ordered the cancellation of the UGC-NET exam and handed over the matter to the CBI for an investigation. In the plea, Gaur also sought a direction to immediately stay the proposed re-examination of the UGC-NET exam until the CBI completes its inquiry into the <keyword id="20116086" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="paper-leak" source="keywords">paper leak</keyword> allegations. "The petitioner asserts that the decision is not only arbitrary but also unjust, given the recent findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). "The CBI's investigation brings the fact that the evidence suggesting the paper leak is doctored, thus nullifying the grounds on which the cancellation was based," the plea, filed through advocate Rohit Pandey, said. The petitioner submitted that the "unwarranted" cancellation of the exam has caused significant distress, anxiety, and an unnecessary expenditure of resources for the aspirants who have rigorously prepared for this crucial examination.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL against government decision to cancel UGC-NET exam

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

New Delhi, A petition has been filed in the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> seeking contempt action against the <keyword id="19934368" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-bank-of-india" source="keywords">State Bank of India</keyword> (SBI) alleging it "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. The plea, filed by two NGOs, claimed SBI's application seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties has been deliberately filed at the last moment to ensure that details of donor and the amount of donations are not disclosed to the public before the upcoming <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lok-sabha" source="keywords">Lok Sabha</keyword> elections. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="19936357" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="keywords">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> on Thursday took note of the submissions by advocate <keyword id="20027334" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan" source="keywords">Prashant Bhushan</keyword>, who appeared on behalf of NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, that he wanted initiation of contempt proceedings against the SBI. Bhushan said the SBI's application is likely to be listed on March 11 and the contempt application should also be heard together with it. "Please send an e-mail. I will pass the order," the CJI said. The SBI moved the top court on March 4 seeking extension of time till June 30 to disclose the details of the electoral bonds that were encashed. In a landmark verdict on February 15, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had scrapped the Centre's electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, calling it "unconstitutional" and ordering disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, the amount donated by them and the recipients by March 13. Ordering closure of the scheme forthwith, the top court had directed the SBI, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, to submit by March 6 the details of the electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to Election Commission (EC), which will publish the information on its official website by March 13. In the contempt plea, the NGOs have said that two days before the expiry of the stated deadline, the SBI has filed an application seeking time till June 30 to comply with the directions. "It is submitted that the said application is mala fide and demonstrates a wilful and deliberate disobedience &amp; defiance of the judgement passed by the constitution bench of this court. It is further a clear attempt to undermine the authority of this court," it said. "The petitioner herein is filing the instant petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against State Bank of India for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated February 15 passed by this court... wherein this court directed SBI to submit details of contribution made to the political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India by March 6," it said. It said the affidavit supporting the SBI's application has neither been sworn by the chairman or the managing director of the bank. It said SBI has the record of the unique number allotted to each electoral bond and the know your customer (KYC) details of its purchaser. "The requirement of the KYC is mentioned in section 4 of the EB scheme itself, therefore, the SBI is well aware of the identity of purchasers of each electoral bond," the plea said. It said as per clause 7 of the electoral bond scheme, information furnished by the buyer can be disclosed when demanded by a competent court. "As per clause 12 (4) of the scheme, electoral bonds have to be encashed within fifteen days failing which the amount of bonds not encashed are to be deposited by the bank to the PM relief Fund. Thus, it is inconceivable that SBI does not have the recorded information readily available within its data base," it said. The plea said electoral bonds are "completely traceable" which is evident from the fact that SBI maintains a secret number-based record of donors who buy bonds, and the political parties they donate to. It said as per information received through RTI, in 30 phases of electoral bonds sale, only 19 out of 29 SBI authorised branches sold electoral bonds and 14 SBI branches encashed them. "The data available as on January 2024 further shows that only 25 political parties had opened their account and are eligible for encashing electoral bonds. Therefore, compiling of this information should not be difficult as the system is already in place," it said. "It is mandatory that SBI furnishes all information relating to electoral bonds within stipulated time frame given by this court as voters will not be able to exercise their informed opinion properly during Lok Sabha 2024 if complete information about EBs is not shared with them," it said. The plea said any form of anonymity in the finances of political parties goes against the essence of participatory democracy and people's right to know enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It said availability of information about electoral bonds will give voters a chance to truly inspect, express and decide their choices. "This defiant approach of the SBI towards citizen's 'right to know' about huge sums of money received by parties through electoral bonds and corporates in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner is reprehensible and betrays its clear motive to stifle citizen's voice and right to audit actions of the political class, and therefore it should be held as serious breach of contempt by this court," it alleged.

Electoral bonds: Plea seeks contempt action against SBI for disobeying SC's order

New Delhi, The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday struck down the electoral bond scheme, saying it violates the right to information and the freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution. In a landmark judgement that will have wide ramifications, it ordered the <keyword id="19934368" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-bank-of-india" source="keywords">State Bank of India</keyword> to disclose to the <keyword id="19895782" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="election-commission" source="keywords">Election Commission</keyword> the names of the contributors to the six-year-old scheme. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="19936357" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="keywords">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> delivered two separate and unanimous verdicts on the pleas challenging the scheme, delivering a major blow to the central government. Pronouncing the verdict, the CJI said the scheme is violative of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution. The bench said the fundamental right to privacy also includes citizens' right to political privacy and affiliation. It also held as invalid the amendments made in various laws, including the <keyword id="20592932" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="representation-of-peoples-act" source="keywords">Representation of Peoples Act</keyword> and the Income Tax laws. It directed that the issuing bank shall stop issuance of electoral bonds and the State Bank of India shall submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to the Election Commission. The top court had on November 2 last year reserved its verdict in the matter. The scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring transparency in political funding. According to the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be purchased by any citizen of India or entity incorporated or established in the country. An individual can buy electoral bonds, either singly or jointly with other individuals without disclosing the identity. Critics have said this eliminates transparency in electoral funding and gives an edge to the ruling parties.

SC strikes down electoral bond scheme, terms it unconstitutional

In a recent <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> decision, Justice J.B. Pardiwala raised a red flag regarding <keyword id="23574724" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-6A" source="keywords">Section 6A</keyword> of the <keyword id="20932920" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Citizenship-Act" source="keywords">Citizenship Act</keyword> of 1955, a provision that grants citizenship to immigrants who entered <keyword id="19911206" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="assam" source="keywords">Assam</keyword> between 1966 and 1971. While the majority ruling upheld Section 6A as constitutional, <keyword id="23584391" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Pardiwala" source="keywords">Justice Pardiwala</keyword>’s dissenting opinion suggests that the provision is both arbitrary and prone to abuse. Here’s what you need to know: <h2>What is Section 6A?</h2>Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985, following the <keyword id="20000897" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Assam-Accord" source="keywords">Assam Accord</keyword>, a historic agreement aimed at addressing the concerns of <keyword id="19959299" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="illegal-immigration" source="keywords">illegal immigration</keyword> in Assam. Under this section, people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are eligible for citizenship if they meet certain residency requirements. <h2>Why does Justice Pardiwala think Section 6A is unconstitutional?</h2>Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A is problematic because of its “open-ended nature,” which lacks a clear deadline for identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. He emphasised that the provision makes it easier for individuals to exploit the system using forged documents. “The open-ended nature of Section 6A has, with the passage of time, become more prone to abuse due to the advent of forged documents,” he wrote, adding that such documents often provide false dates of entry or inaccurate family histories. Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A has become “arbitrary and constitutionally invalid” over time. He believes the lack of a specific timeline for detecting immigrants allows for prolonged misuse, as it gives people an indefinite period to remain in Assam and potentially establish citizenship claims based on falsified information. He further explained that government records deteriorate over time, making it harder to verify or disprove these claims accurately. <h2>What did the majority ruling say?</h2>In contrast to Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A. The court ruled that the Assam Accord was intended as a political solution, and the section remains a valid legal mechanism to address Assam’s historical challenges with illegal immigration. This decision was celebrated by the All Assam Students Union (<keyword id="20938945" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AASU" source="keywords">AASU</keyword>), who consider the verdict a “historic” validation of the Assam Accord’s original intent. Matiur Rahman, a former AASU leader and petitioner in the case, expressed disappointment with the verdict, calling it “unfortunate.” Rahman, who has long advocated for using 1951 rather than 1971 as the cut-off year for citizenship eligibility, argued that the ruling jeopardizes the rights of Assam’s indigenous population. “You can’t make Assam a dumping ground for illegal immigrants,” he remarked, suggesting that his organisation may continue to explore legal options to challenge the decision. Justice Pardiwala’s dissent sheds light on ongoing concerns about immigration laws and their long-term effects on local communities in Assam. While the majority ruling supports Section 6A, Pardiwala’s warning raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of India’s approach to citizenship, as well as the broader implications for Assam’s demographic and political landscape. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Union government if a change in law is warranted on the legal question of whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a <keyword id="1049502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="transport-vehicle" source="Orion">transport vehicle</keyword> of a particular weight. Observing that these are policy issues impacting the livelihood of lakhs of people, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> said the government needs to take a "fresh look" at the matter while asserting that it needs to be taken up at the policy level. The top court asked the Centre to wrap up the exercise within two months and apprise it about the decision taken. It said any interpretation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety and the safety of other users of public transport. The top court had earlier sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in dealing with a legal question about whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight. The constitution bench had said knowing the position of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be necessary after it was argued that the apex court's 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited was accepted by the Centre and rules were amended to align them with the judgement. In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the top court had held that transport vehicles, the gross weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg, are not excluded from the definition of LMV. "There may be lakhs of drivers across the country who are working on the basis of Dewangan judgment. This is not a constitutional issue. It is purely a statutory issue," the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, said. "This is just not the question of law but also the social impact of the law... Road safety has to be balanced with the social purpose of the law and you have to see if this causes serious hardships. We cannot decide issues of social policy in a constitution bench," it said. The apex court said once the government informs its stand to the court, the hearing in the constitution bench will be taken up thereafter. The Constitution bench is dealing with a legal question which reads: "Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of 'light motor vehicle' could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a 'transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class' having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg." On July 18, the constitution bench commenced hearing as many as 76 petitions to deal with the legal question. It had then heard the arguments of senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, on alleged anomalies in the Motor Vehicle Act with regard to regimes for dealing with the grant of driving licenses for different categories of vehicles. The lead petition was filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. The legal question has given rise to various disputes over payment of claims by insurance companies in accident cases involving transport vehicles being driven by those having licences to drive LMVs. The Motor Vehicle Act provides for different regimes for the granting of driving licences for different categories of vehicles. The matter was referred to the larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit, since retired. It was said that certain provisions of the law were not noticed by the apex court in the Mukund Dewangan judgement and "the controversy in question needs to be revisited".

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear on May 15 a plea against the <keyword id="28504" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="kerala" source="Orion">Kerala</keyword> High Court order refusing to stay the release of the controversial multilingual film "The Kerala Story". Senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Tuesday mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench comprising Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> and Justice <keyword id="3330333" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="p-s-narasimha" source="Orion">P S Narasimha</keyword>. When the bench inquired whether the high court has passed an order in the matter, Sibal said it has refused to stay the release of film. "We will keep it on Monday (May 15)," the bench said. On May 5, the high court refused to stay the release of the movie and said the trailer does not contain anything offensive to any particular community as a whole. The high court noted the producers' submission that they do not intend to retain an "offending teaser" which contained a statement that "32,000 women" from Kerala were converted and joined a terrorist organisation. It said the <keyword id="388113" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="central-board-of-film-certification" source="Orion">Central Board of Film Certification</keyword> (CBFC) has examined the movie and found it suitable for public exhibition. The high court also noted that the producers have published a disclaimer along with the movie which specifically says it is fictionalised and a dramatised version of events and that the film doesn't claim accuracy or factuality of historic events. "The Kerala Story" starring Adah Sharma was released in cinemas on Friday. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/air-india-gives-more-time-to-pilots-to-accept-revised-compensation-structure/articleshow/100093565.cms">Air India gives more time to pilots to accept revised compensation structure</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/news/rohit-sharmas-struggle-with-the-bat-is-mental-not-technical-virender-sehwag/articleshow/100093507.cms">Rohit Sharma's struggle with the bat is mental, not technical: Virender Sehwag</a>

SC to hear on May 15 plea against HC order on 'The Kerala Story'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on February 17 a fresh plea of a Congress leader seeking investigation under the supervision of a sitting apex court judge against the <keyword id="76451" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani" source="Orion">Adani</keyword> Group of companies in light of the allegations made by the US-based Hindenburg Research. A bench comprising Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> and Justice <keyword id="3330333" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="p-s-narasimha" source="Orion">P S Narasimha</keyword> took note of the submissions of a lawyer, representing Congress leader <keyword id="2090997" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="jaya-thakur" source="Orion">Jaya Thakur</keyword>, that the plea needed urgent hearing. The bench initially agreed to list the PIL for hearing on February 24 and later decided to hear on Friday after the lawyer pointed out that two other PILs are listed on February 17. Thakur has also sought a direction for investigating the role of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and the State Bank of India (SBI) in investing huge amounts of public money in Adani Enterprises. On Monday, the Centre had agreed to the apex court's proposal to set up a panel of experts to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanisms for the stock market following the recent Adani group shares crash triggered by Hindenburg Research's fraud allegations. The top court seized of two petitions alleging exploitation of innocent investors and "artificial crashing" of the Adani Group's stock value. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/adani-enterprises-posts-820-crore-net-profit-in-q3-gautam-adani-says-current-market-volatility-temporary/articleshow/97914997.cms">Adani Enterprises posts ₹820 crore net profit in Q3: Gautam Adani says current market volatility temporary</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/adani-group-market-cap-falls-below-10-lakh-crore/articleshow/97907746.cms">Adani group’s market cap falls below ₹10 lakh crore as sell-off continues</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/nykaas-stock-plunges-4-2-after-its-q3-net-profit-slips-70/articleshow/97901748.cms">Nykaa’s stock plunges 4.2% after its Q3 net profit slips 70%</a>

Adani-Hindenburg row: SC agrees to hear fresh PIL on February 17

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday declined to postpone the GATE-2022 exam saying that postponement will create "chaos and uncertainty" in the lives of students who have registered for it. A bench headed by <keyword id="3360108" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-D-Y-Chandrachud" source="Orion">Justice D.Y. Chandrachud</keyword> and comprising <keyword id="12007072" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="justices-surya-kant" source="Orion">Justices Surya Kant</keyword> and <keyword id="177282" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="vikram-nath" source="Orion">Vikram Nath</keyword> said the court is not willing to entertain a petition 48 hours before the exam, as it will create chaos and uncertainty in the lives of the students who have already registered for the GATE-2022 exam. The bench was informed that over 9 lakh students are taking the GATE-2022 exam. The bench added that there is no overarching reason for it to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, to supplant the duties and functions of the regulatory authorities who have taken a decision in connection with the schedule of the exam. The bench pointed out that now everything is opening up and it is not correct for courts to step into academic matters. The bench said: "We are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 32...These petitions are accordingly dismissed." Advocate Satpal Singh, representing a petitioner, contended that many state governments have imposed a lockdown on weekends, and in this backdrop holding the exam is unfair and urged the court to defer the exam for a month. The bench told the petitioners counsel that some petitioners have moved before it and many others have already prepared for the exam. It pointed out that the exams were notified in August last year and 9 lakh are appearing for it, and 20,000 have signed an online petition. "Only authorities can look into this", said the bench. Justice Chandrachud queried the petitioners' counsel, "Look at the legitimacy of courts entering into these thickets. Just because some states have issues, how do we play with the careers of all students..." After a detailed hearing in the matter, the top court dismissed the pleas seeking postponement of the exam in the backdrop of third Covid wave. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/airpods-pro-2-could-include-a-sensor-for-fitness-tracking-according-to-a-new-report/articleshow/89315978.cms">AirPods Pro 2 could include a sensor for fitness tracking, according to a new report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/enterprise/news/cognizant-reports-strong-revenue-growth-with-an-improving-attrition-rate/articleshow/89315375.cms">Cognizant is giving positive vibes to the Indian IT industry with strong revenue growth and an improving attrition rate</a>

You Searched For "Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud" and got 9 results

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL against government decision to cancel UGC-NET exam

PTI

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

Electoral bonds: Plea seeks contempt action against SBI for disobeying SC's order

PTI

SC strikes down electoral bond scheme, terms it unconstitutional

PTI

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

BI India Bureau

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

PTI

SC to hear on May 15 plea against HC order on 'The Kerala Story'

PTI

Adani-Hindenburg row: SC agrees to hear fresh PIL on February 17

PTI

Supreme Court junks plea to postpone GATE-2022 exam

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides