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="6354977" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday told the Centre to give reasons if the government is departing from the decision taken last year, amid the Covid pandemic, in connection with the <keyword id="4571860" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="class-XII-board-exams">class XII board exams</keyword>. The top court suggested that the policy adopted last year can also be adopted this year. Attorney General (AG) <keyword id="349004" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="K-K-Venugopal">K.K. Venugopal</keyword>, representing the Centre, urged the top court to give him time till Wednesday to come back with a decision on cancelling of class <keyword id="155806" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="XII">XII</keyword> <keyword id="32862" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="board-exams">board exams</keyword> due to the pandemic. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and <keyword id="1553728" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dinesh-Maheshwari">Dinesh Maheshwari</keyword> told the AG, "you take a decision, but if you are departing from the decision taken last year in connection with the exams, then you must give us good reasons." The government will take a final decision within the next two days on whether to conduct class 12 board exams amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court was informed on Monday. Attorney General K K <keyword id="15333" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Venugopal">Venugopal</keyword> told this to a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari which was hearing a plea seeking directions to cancel the class 12 exams of the <keyword id="6356155" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="cbse">CBSE</keyword> and Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (CISCE) in view of the current situation. "No issue. You take the decision. You are entitled to it. If you are departing from the policy of last year, then you must give tangible reasons for it," the bench told Venugopal. The bench emphasized that the policy which was adopted previous year can be adopted this year too and reiterated that if Centre is departing from the notification issued earlier then it should have good tangible reason. The AG replied that a meeting has been called to take a decision on the issue. The bench responded, "Take whatever decision that's appropriate but what has been expressed by the petitioner is that last year's policy should be followed." The bench further queried the AG, a notification was issued last year, why can it not be continued this year? After a brief hearing in the matter, the top court adjourned the case to Thursday. The petition filed by advocate Mamta Sharma urged the top court to issue directions to the boards to cancel the Class XII examinations, instead devise an objective methodology to declare the result within a specific time-frame. "The Covid-19 situation is more severe in comparison to last year and require the respondents to adopt the same criteria of assessing the grading/marks of class XII students as done in the last year", said the plea. The plea contended that notifications issued by CBSE and ICSE deferring the exams to an unspecified date should be quashed, adding that students cannot be subjected to suffer uncertainty amid unprecedented public health crisis. The plea contended that it is a fit case wherein the top court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the respondents to implement the same methodology, which is being adopted for class X to declare the result and cancel the examination for Class XII. Last year, amid the pandemic the top court had asked boards to determine and declare Class 12 exam results on the basis of earlier assessment of students. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-se-3-smartphone-launch-date-specifications-expected-price-in-india/articleshow/83107752.cms">iPhone SE 3 launch date, specifications, price in India and everything else we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/lockdown-new-rule-in-maharashtra-check-out-whats-is-allowed-and-whats-not-from-june-1/articleshow/83106701.cms">Maharashtra lockdown: Checkout what is allowed and what is not as per the new guidelines</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/former-hdfc-bank-ceo-aditya-puri-and-carlyle-will-be-among-the-new-owners-of-pnb-housing-finance-triggering-an-open-offer/articleshow/83105948.cms">Former HDFC Bank CEO Aditya Puri and Carlyle will be among the new owners of PNB Housing Finance triggering an open offer</a>

Government to take decision on Class 12 board exams in two days — Supreme Court suggests using same policy as last year

The Supreme Court in a majority judgment on Monday upheld the validity of the Constitution's 103rd Amendment Act 2019, which provides for 10 per cent <keyword id="11939755" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="ews" source="Orion">EWS</keyword> reservation amongst the general category in admissions and jobs. A five-judge Constitution bench in a 3:2 majority verdict has held that the provisions of the Amendment do not violate essential features of the Constitution. Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat dissented from the majority verdict and struck down the 103rd Amendment Act. "I have concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat. The decision stands at 3:2," said CJI Lalit while pronouncing his verdict in the last. Majority bench - Justices Dinesh <keyword id="89142" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="maheshwari" source="Orion">Maheshwari</keyword>, Bela <keyword id="729" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="trivedi" source="Orion">Trivedi</keyword> and <keyword id="3029297" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="jb-pardiwala" source="Orion">JB Pardiwala</keyword> upheld the EWS Amendment saying the EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Maheshwari, while reading out the judgement said, "The EWS amendment does not violate the equality code or the essential features of the Constitution." He said reservation is an instrument of affirmative action so as to ensure an all-inclusive march towards the goals of an egalitarian society. Justice Bela M Trivedi said her judgment is in concurrence with Justice Maheshwari and that the EWS quota in the general category is valid and constitutional. She said, "The amendment as a separate class is a reasonable classification. Legislature understands the needs of people and it is aware of the economic exclusion of people from the reservation." Justice JB <keyword id="3025481" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="pardiwala" source="Orion">Pardiwala</keyword> in his separate but concurring judgement with Justices Maheshwari and Trivedi upheld the Act and said that reservation should not continue for an indefinite time. He said. "The ones who have moved ahead should be removed from backward classes so that ones in need can be helped. The ways to determine backward classes need a re-look so that ways are relevant in today's time. Reservation should not continue for an indefinite time so that it becomes a vested interest." Justice Bhat in his dissent verdict struck down the 103rd Amendment saying that while reservation on an economic basis is permissible, excluding SC/STs and Other Backward Classes from EWS cannot be permitted and amounts to discrimination against them. The Constitution bench verdict came on a batch of petitions, filed by NGOs Janhit Abhiyan and Youth for Equality, among others, challenging the Amendment on the ground that economic classification cannot be the sole basis for reservation. During the hearing, lawyers appearing for petitioners submitted that the 103rd Amendment granted reservation to upper castes and this was a violation of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It was contended by the lawyers of the petitioners that the quota on the economic ground alone is impermissible. The petitions were filed in the top court in 2019, challenging the validity of the Constitution's 103rd Amendment Act 2019. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/govt-asks-sugar-mills-to-export-speedily-to-make-early-payment-to-farmers/articleshow/95347832.cms">Govt asks sugar mills to export speedily to make early payment to farmers</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/delhi-sprinkling-of-water-done-on-roads-to-check-rise-in-aqi/articleshow/95353196.cms">Delhi: Sprinkling of water done on roads, to check rise in AQI</a>

SC upholds 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections by 3:2 majority

<ul><li>Cops scanned <keyword id="6354857" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="cctv" source="Orion">CCTV</keyword> footages of the area and spotted a man leaving the area with a bag on a bike.</li><li>Locals and jewellers of the area threatened to close the entire Chowk market, if the miscreant is not caught soon.</li><li>Later in the evening, Mayor <keyword id="14010981" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="sanyunkta-bhatia" source="Orion">Sanyunkta Bhatia</keyword> visited Anandi Devi <keyword id="6355287" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="temple" source="Orion">temple</keyword> and met with the locals. </li></ul> An unidentified man broke into 150-year-old Anandi Devi temple in <keyword id="463440" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chowk-area" source="Orion">Chowk area</keyword> in the wee hours of Tuesday and decamped with the silver crown of the deity, gold-plated face of the idol and cash from the donation box, police said. Significantly, Chowk police station is about 20m from the temple and a police outpost also in the neighbourhood, but cops got no whiff till morning when temple authorities called U. The incident led to protest from the locals who said the theft committed right under the nose of the police not only exposed tall claims of heavy patrolling but also desecrated the deity. Former deputy chief minister Dinesh Sharma and ex-minister Ashutosh Tandon, who is also local MLA, visited the temple and inquired with the police about the investigation. An <keyword id="6358015" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="fir" source="Orion">FIR</keyword> was lodged on the complaint of the temple priest Atul Awasthi. In the FIR, it was stated that Awasthi came to the temple around 5am for morning rituals, unlocked the shutter of the main entrance and found that the lock of the inner door was broken and jewellery worth lakhs and cash missing. He informed Utkarsh Agarwal, custodian of the temple, who called U. A police team along with senior officials rushed to the spot. Dog squad and a forensic team were also called in. Cops scanned CCTV footages of the area and spotted a man leaving the area with a bag on a bike. The man is being treated as a suspect by the police. Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, <keyword id="13929133" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="shivasimpi-channappa" source="Orion">Shivasimpi Channappa</keyword> said an FIR under the charges of theft has been lodged against unidentified miscreant. "Since the shutter was not broken, it appears that the miscreant had a master key to unlock it and get inside the temple. However, he failed to unlock the inner gate and broke the lock before decamping with valuables," he said. Claiming that the incident has hurt religious sentiments, locals and jewellers of the area threatened to close the entire Chowk market, if the miscreant is not caught soon. Vinod Maheshwari, a resident, said the temple holds a high place among locals and everyone bows before it daily before leaving for work. Later in the evening, Mayor Sanyunkta Bhatia visited Anandi Devi temple and met with the locals who were protesting outside the premises. She also spoke to the <keyword id="6355192" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lucknow" source="Orion">Lucknow</keyword> police commissioner and the district magistrate and asked them to investigate the matter on priority. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/king-charles-iii-will-be-coronated-in-may-the-ritual-has-ancient-origins-heres-what-we-can-expect/articleshow/94801307.cms">King Charles III will be coronated in May. The ritual has ancient origins - here's what we can expect</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/imf-praises-rbi-for-tightening-the-monetary-policy-to-curb-inflation/articleshow/94801416.cms">IMF praises RBI for tightening the monetary policy to curb inflation</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/ready-to-talk-with-startups-to-address-their-concerns-and-prevent-them-from-moving-out-of-india-sitharaman/articleshow/94800585.cms">Ready to talk with startups to address their concerns and prevent them from moving out of India: Sitharaman</a>

Lucknow temple desecrated; cash, jewels stolen

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday confirmed the death sentence given to a man for the cold blooded <keyword id="13542" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="murder" source="Orion">murder</keyword> and <keyword id="6435288" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="brutal-rape" source="Orion">brutal rape</keyword> of a seven-and-a-half-year-old mentally and physically challenged girl. The apex court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's May 29, 2015 order, which sentenced the convict to death. A three-judge bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar said: "In the case of the present nature, the crime had been of extreme depravity, which shocks the conscience, particularly looking to the target (a seven-and-a-half-year-old mentally and physically challenged girl) and then, looking to the manner of committing murder, where the hapless victim's head was literally smashed, resulting in multiple injuries, including fracture of frontal bone". The bench added, "In the present case, where all the elements surrounding the offence as also all the elements surrounding the offender cut across the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there is absolutely no reason to commute the sentence of death to any other sentence of lesser degree". The bench observed that even the alternative of awarding the sentence of imprisonment for whole of the natural life with no remission does not appear justified in view of the nature of crimes committed by the appellant and looking to his incorrigible conduct. The accused, Manoj Pratap Singh, had moved the apex court challenging the high court judgment. The top court noted that the accused was found involved in at least four cases with offences ranging from Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Section 379 IPC and even 307 IPC. "Second, being the fact that the present crime itself was carried out with the aid of a stolen motorcycle. Third, and crucial one being his conduct post-conviction where he not only earned seven days' punishment in jail for quarrelling with a co-inmate but he has been convicted of the offence of murder of another jail inmate," added the bench in its 129-page judgment. The bench said read as a whole, the fact-sheet concerning the appellant leads only the logical deduction that there is no possibility that he would not relapse again in this crime if given any indulgence. The high court had said the brutal <keyword id="39493" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rape" source="Orion">rape</keyword> and murder mentally and physically challenged girl falls under the category of rarest of rare case, as it confirmed death penalty to the accused. The top court said: "The sentences awarded to the appellant, including the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are also confirmed." The accused had kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered the girl on January 17, 2013. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/ashneer-grover-slams-rbi-over-recent-mandate/articleshow/92431030.cms">Ashneer Grover slams RBI over recent mandate</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/garuda-aerospace-drones-are-delivering-food-and-medicine-in-flood-hit-assam/articleshow/92430643.cms">Garuda Aerospace drones are delivering food and medicine in flood-hit Assam</a>

SC calls rape, murder of 7 year old girl 'crime of extreme depravity', confirms death sentence

<ul><li>The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the CBSE to issue fresh notification in connection with Class 12 exams, clarifying the option between internal assessment and exams later.</li><li>A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to clarify the issue of taking the option between internal assessment and exams later.</li><li>The apex court also sought clarity on the beginning of the new academic year.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the CBSE to issue fresh notification in connection with Class 12 exams, clarifying the option between internal assessment and exams later. The observation from the top court after it was informed that the CBSE has decided to cancel the remaining board exams for Class 10 and Class 12. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to clarify the issue of taking the option between internal assessment and exams later. "Clarify the date of results," said the bench, noting that the CBSE will have to submit a fresh draft notification cancelling class 12 Board exams and affidavit on Friday morning, before the top court continues to hear the matter again at 10.30 a.m. The apex court also sought clarity on the beginning of the new academic year. It told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, that the CBSE is willing to conduct exams when the situation is conducive, but this may vary from state to state. "Will the decision be taken by a central authority or will the state government take the decision? How are you going to deal with that situation?" Mehta replied that the decision must be taken according to the situation. To this, the bench said should not the solution be pan-India? "You have not said when you will decide on this issue, and when you will take stock of these things. Some time frame will have to be given," noted the bench. Continuing its queries, the bench said: "What about state regional board exams... the CBSE does not hold all the exams. The state Board is also there." Mehta replied that the instructions from the controller of examinations are that exams are controlled centrally. "State boards assist the CBSE," he replied. The bench observed that the government should modify the draft notification and include the state board issue. "Clear the stand that decision will be taken at the central level and not at the state level... other courses will have to be delayed till CBSE exam results come out," it said. Mehta replied the assessment results will be published now, and if a student wants to opt to give the exam, then that will be conducted later. The top court asked Mehta to bring this on record and redraft the notification.

SC asks CBSE for more details on class 12's internal assessment and 'exams later' option

New Delhi, Jun 18 () The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the Centre to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and file a USD 600 billion compensation case against China, alleging that the COVID-19 pandemic was "deliberately created" by it. A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and A S Bopanna said it would not entertain PIL which claimed there was strong evidence that coronavirus or COVID-19, which has "destroyed" the Indian economy and killed hundreds of it citizens, originated from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology. Advocate C R Jaya Sukin, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench that the plea should be treated as a representation by the government. The plea, filed by Madurai resident K K Ramesh, had alleged that COVID-19 has been "deliberately created by China as biological weapon against India". "Petitioner states COVID-19 pandemic was designed by China to be a very effective and catastrophic biological warfare weapon to kill mass population in India," said the plea. It underlined that coronavirus spread in India, other countries and continents but not in other cities of China despite originating in nearby Wuhan. The plea said that since individuals cannot approach the ICJ, the Centre should be directed to file the compensation case against China. ABA MNL SJK SA

Coronavirus: SC refuses to hear plea for directing Centre to move ICJ for compensation from China

(Eds: Adding details from order) New Delhi, Jun 18 () The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and file a USD 600 billion compensation case against China, alleging that the COVID-19 pandemic was "deliberately created" by it. "The writ petition is dismissed," said a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which granted liberty to petitioner K K Ramesh to make a representation to the government in this regard. "However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the government. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of," said the bench, which also comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and A S Bopanna, in its order. Advocate C R Jaya Sukin, appearing for the petitioner, through video conferencing, told the bench that the petition should be treated as a representation by the government. The plea had claimed there was strong evidence that coronavirus or COVID-19, which has "destroyed" the Indian economy and killed hundreds of it citizens, originated from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology. The plea had alleged that COVID-19 has been "deliberately created by China as biological weapon against India". "Petitioner states COVID-19 pandemic was designed by China to be a very effective and catastrophic biological warfare weapon to kill mass population in India," said the plea. It underlined that coronavirus spread in India, other countries and continents but not in other cities of China despite originating in nearby Wuhan. The plea said that since individuals cannot approach the ICJ, the Centre should be directed to file the compensation case against China. ABA MNL SJK ABA RKS RKS

Coronavirus: SC rejects plea for directing Centre to move ICJ for compensation from China

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to assist the court in the <keyword id="9820120" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="2009-contempt-case">2009 contempt case</keyword> against Advocate <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> for his remarks in the Tehelka magazine. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna directed that the case record of the 2009 contempt case should be sent to AG. Senior advocate <keyword id="377410" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rajeev-Dhavan">Rajeev Dhavan</keyword>, representing Bhushan, submitted before the bench that in the previous hearing the AG had shown inclination to assist the court in the matter, and thus he should be impleaded as an amicus curiae. The bench replied that the AG would be impleaded in the case in accordance with the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, and the decision to appoint him as an amicus-curiae in the matter will be taken later. Dhavan contended before the bench there are more questions of law, which should be framed in the case, as 10 questions have already been framed. He added that the court wanted to add three more. After a brief hearing on the matter, the bench said it will take up the case in the week commencing from October 12. On August 25, <keyword id="1014396" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Arun-Mishra">Justice Arun Mishra</keyword> had directed that the case be placed before another bench, as he was days away from demitting office. The Supreme Court had observed that it is not a question of punishment only, it is a question of faith in the institution. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had told Dhavan that he must ponder that people come to court for relief, and when that faith is shaken then there is a problem. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for journalist Tarun Tejpal, contended before the bench that people come to court for justice and relief. "We will come and go but the institution exists forever. We must protect the integrity of the institution," Sibal had submitted. The bench had then said the matter to be listed on September 10 before an appropriate bench by the Chief Justice. "I am short of time. I am demitting office," Justice Mishra had observed, who retired on September 2. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/supreme-court-inclined-to-excuse-moratorium-interest-on-interest-as-it-gives-the-government-another-two-weeks-to-file-detailed-affidavit/articleshow/78033878.cms">Supreme Court ‘inclined’ to excuse moratorium interest on interest as it gives the government another two weeks to file detailed affidavit</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-tests-prashant-bhushans-resolve-with-a-1-fine-for-critical-tweets/articleshow/77846880.cms">Supreme Court tests Prashant Bhushan's resolve with a ₹1 fine for 'critical' tweets</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-refers-prashant-bhushans-2009-contempt-to-another-bench/articleshow/77736957.cms">Supreme Court refers Prashant Bhushan's 2009 contempt case to another bench</a>

Supreme Court ropes in Attorney General to help in 2009 contempt case against Bhushan

<keyword id="1707038" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="The-Institute-of-Chartered-Accountants-of-India">The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India</keyword> (ICAI) told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it cannot hold the <keyword id="10220121" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="upcoming-ca-exam">upcoming CA exam</keyword> online as suggested by some of the candidates, in view of COVID-19, as it tests the analytical capabilities of the examinees. The ICAI said its 3-hour exam is of a different pattern altogether, which have descriptive answers and not tick marks. A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the ICAI to publish on its website the steps taken for students welfare with regard to COVID-19 and disposed of the petition seeking a detailed <keyword id="110048" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="20" keywordseo="Standard-Operating-Procedure">Standard Operating Procedure</keyword> (SOP) for the examinees in the upcoming CA exams. The Chartered Accountant exams are scheduled to be held on November 21 to December 14. During the hearing, <keyword id="10220122" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="senior-advocate-ramji-srinivasan">senior advocate Ramji Srinivasan</keyword>, appearing for the ICAI, said that they don't have any isolation room as examination centres and don't have the facilities for doctors. He said that as directed by the top court in its last hearing, they have examined all the suggestions given by advocate Bansuri Swaraj, representing the petitioners. "There was suggestion that can we hold an online exams. Ours exams has different pattern and therefore we cannot hold the online examination", he said, adding that they test the analytical capabilities of examinees. The bench then told Swaraj that petitioners need to be reasonable in their demands and it was not satisfied with their responses. Srinivasan further said that transport and accommodation was also sought by the petitioner but that is not possible. He submitted that ICAI may request Ministry of Home Affairs to allow e-admit cards to book hotels. The bench said that it is a state specific issue as earlier when such suggestions were made, the state governments have agreed to do so. It told Swaraj that how can online exams be allowed when the answers are required to be descriptive. "How can this be allowed? Just because courts are allowing many things, you cannot keep on asking what you want. Be reasonable in your demands," the bench told the petitioner's counsel. It asked ICAI to put all the information on the grievances raised by the Petitioners on the website and disposed of the plea saying if there is any lapse it will be addressed but exams in the past have been handled well. The petitioners have contended that despite less than a month left for the commencement of examination, no steps have been taken by the authorities with respect to safety of examinees. They have claimed that no safety guidelines have been issued by ICAI on how the examinations will be held amid COVID-19 pandemic. The plea alleged that the examination will be in violation of central government guidelines which prohibits congregations of more than 100 persons at an academic institution. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/us-election-results-date-2020/articleshow/79034082.cms">Here’s when we will know the 2020 US election results</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/ratan-tata-mukesh-ambani-and-uday-kotak-to-be-a-part-of-pm-modis-virtual-global-investor-roundtable-on-thursday/articleshow/79032895.cms">Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani and Uday Kotak to be a part of PM Modi's Virtual Global Investor Roundtable on Thursday</a>

CA Exam 2020: ICAI tells Supreme Court the exams cannot be held online

<ul><li>The Supreme Court Thursday said the <keyword id="6356155" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="cbse">CBSE</keyword> would not be able to help much the students taking compartment exams for class XII this month as it would be the colleges and universities which will take their admissions for higher studies. </li><li>The apex court said this while hearing a plea which has challenged the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to hold compartment exams on the ground that it would be detrimental to the health of the examinees. </li></ul>The Supreme Court Thursday said the CBSE would not be able to help much the students taking compartment exams for class XII this month as it would be the colleges and universities which will take their admissions for higher studies. The apex court said this while hearing a plea which has challenged the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to hold compartment exams on the ground that it would be detrimental to the health of the examinees "It is the colleges, universities and deemed universities which will be taking admissions of those students and the CBSE will not be able to help much the students taking compartment exams," a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar told senior advocate Vivek Tankha, who was representing the petitioners. The bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, said this after Tankha argued that the CBSE may ask the colleges to give provisional admissions or wait till results are declared for compartment exams. Tankha said that compartment exams are scheduled from September 22 to 29 and by that time, admissions for various undergraduate courses would be over. He said students taking compartment exams would not get admissions in colleges and their whole year would be wasted. The senior advocate argued that the CBSE could not hold main exams due to the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to declare results based on some "hybrid systems of evaluation" and due to this, many students are facing compartment exams "In the interest of students, who are almost five lakhs, taking compartment exams, something must be done," he said. The bench observed that compartment exams are being conducted "perhaps three times in a year". The top court said around 87,000 students have failed and the solution does not lie with the CBSE. During the hearing conducted through video-conferencing, Tankha said the Centre and states could be served with the copy of petition through standing counsel and attempts could be made to find an acceptable solution for such students. "Don't complicate it otherwise it will not come up for hearing," the bench said. The apex court later asked the petitioners to serve the copy of the plea to the Centre and posted the matter for hearing on September 14. On September 4, the CBSE had opposed in the top court a plea and said all "necessary" safety measures for students are being taken in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The CBSE's counsel had said that board has increased the number of examination centres for compartment tests from 575 to 1,278. "We have taken a decision that in a class where 40 students could sit, now only 12 will sit and we are taking all precautions," the counsel for CBSE had said, adding that all necessary measures are being taken. The apex court had asked the CBSE to file a short affidavit in response of the plea of Anika Samvedi and others. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/supreme-court-inclined-to-excuse-moratorium-interest-on-interest-as-it-gives-the-government-another-two-weeks-to-file-detailed-affidavit/articleshow/78033878.cms">Supreme Court ‘inclined’ to excuse moratorium interest on interest as it gives the government another two weeks to file detailed affidavit</a>

CBSE won't be able to help students taking class XII compartment exams says SC

New Delhi, The <keyword id="6354977" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday cleared the decks for the ambitious Central Vista <keyword id="6355739" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Project">Project</keyword>, which covers a three-km stretch from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate in Lutyens' Delhi, by upholding the environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use. The Central Vista revamp, announced in September, 2019 envisages a <keyword id="10224786" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="new-triangular-parliament-building">new triangular Parliament building</keyword>, with a seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, that is to be constructed by August, 2022 when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day. The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024 under the project. A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, by 2:1 majority, held that the grant of environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use for the project was valid. Justice Khanwilkar, writing the judgement for himself and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, also directed that the project proponent set up smog tower and use anti-smog guns at the <keyword id="6452163" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="CONSTRUCTION-SITE">construction site</keyword> for the Central Vista project. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the third judge on the bench, also agreed on the issue of award of project. He, however, disagreed with the judgment on change of land use and on grant of environmental clearance for the project. In the majority verdict, the <keyword id="6356229" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court">apex court</keyword> said that prior permission shall be taken from heritage conservation committee and other relevant authorities before start of construction at new sites On the aspect of change in land use, Justice Khanna said it was bad in law and there was no disclosure for public participation on the issue. The top court's verdict came on several pleas on the issue, including the one filed by activist Rajeev Suri, against various permissions given to the project by authorities including the grant of environmental clearance and the nod to change of land use On December 7, last year the top court had allowed the Centre to proceed with the foundation stone-laying ceremony for the Central Vista project on December 10 after the government assured it that no construction or demolition work would commence till the apex court decides the pending pleas on the issue. Prime Minister <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword> had laid the foundation stone for the new Parliament building and the construction is expected to be completed by 2022 at an estimated cost of Rs 971 crore. The apex court had earlier said that any change at the ground level made by authorities for the Central Vista project will be "at their own risk". It had made it clear that the fate of the project, which includes several new government buildings and a new Parliament House, will depend on its decision. The Centre had earlier argued in the top court that the project would "save money" which is paid as rent for housing central government ministries in the national capital. It had submitted that the decision to have a new Parliament building has not been taken in haste and no law or norms have been violated in any manner for the project. The Centre had also said there was no arbitrariness or favouritism in selecting consultant for the project and the argument that the government could have adopted a better process cannot be a ground to scrap the project. Gujarat-based architecture firm HCP Designs has won the consultancy bid for the project to redevelop the Central Vista. The pleas filed in the apex court had also challenged the grant of a no-objection certificate by the Central Vista Committee (CVC) and also the environmental clearances for the construction of a new Parliament house building. One of the pleas was filed against a <keyword id="6355014" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> order which had said the <keyword id="6371761" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-development-authority">Delhi Development Authority</keyword> (DDA) was not required to apprise it before notifying changes in the Master Plan to allow the Central Vista project. A division bench of the Delhi High Court had on February 28 stayed an order of its single-judge bench which had asked the DDA to approach the court before notifying any change in the Master Plan for going forth with the project to redevelop the Central Vista. The stay order of the high court on the single-judge bench's February 11 direction had come on the intra-court appeal of the DDA and the Centre. The petitioners before the high court had opposed the Central Vista project on grounds that it involves a change in land use of the green area adjoining Rajpath and Vijay Chowk for building a new Parliament building and government offices. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/top-stocks-to-watch-hdfc-tech-mahindra-lt-bajaj-finance-iifl-securities-sun-pharma-and-others/articleshow/80107597.cms">Top stocks to watch — HDFC, Tech Mahindra, L&amp;T, Bajaj Finance, IIFL Securities, Sun Pharma, and others</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/tatas-got-airasia-stake-at-a-20-discount-while-indigo-and-spicejets-value-has-doubled-since-pandemic-broke-out/articleshow/80101467.cms">Tatas got AirAsia stake at a 20% discount while IndiGo and SpiceJet’s value has doubled since pandemic broke out</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/bharat-biotech-sees-rivals-conspiracy-in-all-the-criticism-for-the-approval-for-covaxin/articleshow/80099818.cms">Bharat Biotech sees rivals’ conspiracy in all the criticism for the approval for Covaxin</a>

Supreme Court clears the Central Vista project, says environmental clearance is 'valid'

New Delhi, Jul 2 () The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that it would assess the feasibility of conducting CA exams, scheduled between July 29 and August 16, in view of the spike in number of COVID-19 cases across the country and consult states and examination centres on this issue. The ICAI's counsel told a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar that cases of coronavirus have increased and some of the states have extended the restrictions imposed amid the spike in the number of infection. He sought time from the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, for contacting examination centres to access the ground situation and explore the feasibility of conducting the exams. The top court was hearing through video conferencing a plea which has challenged the 'opt out' option provided by the ICAI to the candidates alleging that it "arbitrarily" discriminates between the aspirants in the May cycle of CA examination. The apex court, after hearing the submissions, said it would hear the matter on July 10. On June 29, the apex court had observed that ICAI should be flexible in conducting exams amid the COVID-19 pandemic and take care of candidates' concerns. It had suggested that option for change in examination centre should be made available to the candidates till the last week before the scheduled exams considering the fact that an area may become a containment zone due to the coronavirus situation. The apex court had said that ICAI should be flexible on the issues of 'opt out' and change of examination centre as the situation prevailing due to the pandemic was not static and continuously changing. Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner, had earlier told the bench that number of examination centres should be increased and there should be one centre per district. The ICAI had expressed difficulty on this and told the court that over 500 examination centres have been identified and sanitized properly. The ICAI's counsel had earlier said that out of around 3,46,000 registered aspirants, only 53,000 have taken the 'opt out' option. The petitioner, president of 'India Wide Parents Association', has claimed in the plea that ICAI has stated that students, who have already submitted online examination application for May examination cycle, shall be allowed to 'opt out' and carry forward their candidature to November 2020 examination cycle. "It is respectfully submitted that Respondent No.1 ICAI has notified that for the students who choose opt-out option, this attempt (May 2020) will be treated as cancelled/not counted. Thus, such student will be deprived of the May, 2020, attempt, as compared to other group of students, who choose opt-in option," the plea said, while seeking quashing of the announcement made in this regard on June 15. "The said 'opt-out' option discriminates between those underprivileged group of CA students/ aspirants, who are living in remote areas of the country or living in the containment zones and thus are slated to lose one precious 'examination attempt' by choosing 'opt-out' option amidst ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as compared to that privileged group of students/ aspirants, who are living in big cities/ green zones and thus they have no problem in appearing in the said examination," it said. It has said that free transportation and accommodation should be provided to the aspirants near their respective examination centres. It has further sought directions to the authorities to conduct mandatory free COVID-19 test of all aspirants and teachers and staffs deployed at the examination centres. ABA MNL SJK SA

You Searched For "Dinesh Maheshwari" and got 12 results

Government to take decision on Class 12 board exams in two days — Supreme Court suggests using same policy as last year

IANS

SC upholds 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections by 3:2 majority

ANI

Lucknow temple desecrated; cash, jewels stolen

TNN

SC calls rape, murder of 7 year old girl 'crime of extreme depravity', confirms death sentence

IANS

SC asks CBSE for more details on class 12's internal assessment and 'exams later' option

IANS

Coronavirus: SC refuses to hear plea for directing Centre to move ICJ for compensation from China

PTI

Coronavirus: SC rejects plea for directing Centre to move ICJ for compensation from China

PTI

Supreme Court ropes in Attorney General to help in 2009 contempt case against Bhushan

IANS

CA Exam 2020: ICAI tells Supreme Court the exams cannot be held online

PTI

CBSE won't be able to help students taking class XII compartment exams says SC

PTI

Supreme Court clears the Central Vista project, says environmental clearance is 'valid'

PTI

Will assess feasibility of conducting CA exams amid spike in COVID-19 cases, ICAI tells SC

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides