Another NEET aspirant dies by suicide in Kota despite Supreme Court's warnings to Rajasthan govt
In yet another tragic incident, a NEET aspirant from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) died by suicide in Kota, Rajasthan highlighting the ongoing mental health crisis among students preparing for competitive exams in India.
The student, identified as Zeeshan, had arrived in Kota just a week ago to prepare for the NEET UG medical entrance exam. The incident occurred in Mahavir Nagar, a locality known for housing students attending coaching institutes.
According to police reports, Zeeshan took her life by hanging herself in her room late on Sunday evening.
Shockingly, she was reportedly on a phone call with a friend from J&K at the time of the incident.
When the hostel staff and neighbours were alerted, they tried to access her room but they found the door locked from inside.
With help from a nearby carpenter, authorities had to cut through the door to enter the girl's room.
Zeeshan was found hanging and was immediately rushed to the hospital, where she was declared brought dead.
Police have confirmed that no suicide note was recovered from the scene. The body has been placed in the mortuary, and the post-mortem will be conducted after the arrival of her family, who have been informed of the tragedy.
Zeeshan had reportedly pursued online coaching last year and had shifted to Kota for in-person preparation just seven days ago, taking residence in a hostel in Mahavir Nagar Third.
This incident comes just days after the Supreme Court strongly criticised the Rajasthan state government over the alarming number of student suicides in Kota this year.
The Supreme Court questioned what concrete steps have been taken in response to 14 student suicides reported in 2025 alone.
The Apex Court remarked that the issue must be taken "seriously and not lightly," urging immediate intervention.
In a symbolic reprimand, the Supreme Court also withheld the salary of the Kota Superintendent of Police (SP) as of July 14, emphasising administrative accountability.
Kota, often referred to as India's coaching capital, has been under the spotlight due to a disturbing pattern of suicides among students, especially those preparing for NEET and IIT-JEE exams.
Academic pressure, isolation, and lack of emotional support continue to pose grave challenges.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Same-Sex Unions Not Marriages In Law But Queer Couples Can Form A Family: Madras High Court
Last Updated: The court invoked an emotional letter by late Justice Leila Seth and said not every parent is like her who could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation The Madras High Court recently ordered the release of a 25-year-old woman from the illegal custody of her natal family, declaring that no adult can be detained against their will merely for choosing a same-sex partner. A habeas corpus petition was filed by MA, seeking the release of her partner, D, who her father and other family members had allegedly confined. D's (the detenue's) mother, who accompanied her, accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and claimed she was addicted to drugs—allegations the court found baseless after observing the detenue's composure and clarity. The bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan interacted with the detenue in private, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Devu G Nair v State of Kerala, to ascertain her true wishes. The woman, a well-qualified adult, told the court that she is a lesbian and in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. She described being forcibly taken home, subjected to rituals intended to 'cure" her, and even beaten by her family members. Highlighting India's evolving legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights, the bench referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NALSA v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and the recognition of 'chosen families" in Deepika Singh v. CAT. The judges emphasised that sexual orientation and identity fall squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity. 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'," the bench observed. 'To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?" the court said. The judgment concluded with a continuing mandamus directing jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple if required and restrained the woman's family from interfering with her liberty. 'We endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own," the court noted, while expressing empathy for the parent's social conditioning. The bench invoked a letter by the late Justice Leila Seth, who had once written emotionally about the criminalisation of homosexuality and the pain it caused families. 'What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love," she wrote. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation," the bench emphasised. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (2023), the high court stressed that it may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, but they can very well form a family. 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family," the division bench held. First Published: June 05, 2025, 13:17 IST
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
"Impeachment Not One Party's Agenda": Kiren Rijiju On Judge In Cash Row
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, linked to judicial corruption, requires bipartisan support. Allegations of burnt cash found at his house prompted calls for collaborative action. New Delhi: The planned impeachment motion against high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the cash-at-home matter is linked to corruption in the judiciary, and is not the agenda of one political party, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said today, explaining why all political parties should jointly move the motion. The Supreme Court had formed an inquiry committee following allegations of "burnt cash" found at a storeroom of Justice Varma's house when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. "With regards to the impeachment motion against the high court judge [Justice] Yashwant Verma, I have initiated discussion with political parties. Most of the major political parties have already been told and we have sought a collaborative effort where all the political parties should come together and jointly move the motion," Mr Rijiju said today. "The government feels that the matter is related to corruption, and this is a matter related to corruption of a high court sitting judge, so this is not one party's political agenda. It is the stand of every political party to fight against the menace of corruption, whether it is a judicial or any other space," the parliamentary affairs minister said. "So the government would like to take all political parties on board and then initiate the impeachment motion. I will reach out to some remaining smaller parties also so that everybody is on board on this important matter," he added. The in-house inquiry committee submitted its report on the issue last month, which has since been forwarded to the Prime Minister and the President. On May 4, a panel of judges tasked with conducting an internal inquiry into allegations of cash being discovered at Justice Varma's house submitted its report to the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna. According to an official communication from the Supreme Court, the three-member committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, judge of the High Court of Karnataka, concluded its investigation and presented its findings in a report dated May 3. Justice Varma was sworn in as a judge of the Allahabad High Court under unusual and contentious circumstances on April 5. The monsoon session of parliament will begin on July 21 and run till August 12. It will also be the first parliament session following Operation Sindoor. The Opposition leaders have been seeking a special session of parliament upon the arrival of the all-party delegations sent to other nations to present India's views on Pakistan's state-sponsored terrorism.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump travel ban: Why is Trump banning millions from the US again?
US President Donald Trump has announced a new travel ban affecting 19 countries, saying, 'We don't want them.' The sweeping restrictions, introduced via a presidential proclamation on Wednesday, block or limit entry for citizens from nations deemed 'high-risk' by his administration. The ban, which begins on 9 June, is being framed as a national security measure and comes just five months into Trump's second term. Trump cited 'foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals' for the move and warned that more countries may be added as threats emerge. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted,' he said, referencing an incident involving an Egyptian national accused of assault during a protest. Trump Travel Ban: Who is affected? The proclamation creates a three-tiered barrier system. Twelve countries are fully banned from entry — including for tourism, work, or study. These are: by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Windows Users Don't Forget To Do This Before Thursday Read More Undo Afghanistan Myanmar (Burma) Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen Seven other countries face partial restrictions, meaning citizens may face specific visa or entry limitations: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela Each country has been flagged for one or more of the following reasons: unreliable government screening systems, high visa overstay rates, or ties to terrorism. Live Events "We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm," Trump said in a video posted on X. He said the list could be revised and new countries could be added. The proclamation is effective on June 9, 2025 at 12:01 am EDT (0401 GMT). Visas issued before that date will not be revoked, the order said. In his proclamation, Trump asserted: 'During my first administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals... which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld.' He added that the new policy ensures those entering the US 'do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists.' The proclamation builds on an earlier executive order which tasked the US State Department with identifying nations that do not meet US standards for document integrity and traveller screening. Countries like Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen were cited for lacking competent authorities to issue valid passports or verify identities. Others, such as Myanmar and Chad, were included for excessive rates of visa overstays. The move also reflects Trump's campaign rhetoric. Last year, he promised to 'ban refugee resettlement from terror-infested areas like the Gaza Strip.' Sporting events and key exceptions Despite the broad scope of the restrictions, certain exemptions remain. According to the White House, the ban will not apply to athletes participating in the 2026 FIFA World Cup or the 2028 Olympic Games. Permanent residents, visa holders, and Afghan nationals under the special immigrant visa (SIV) scheme will also be exempted in limited cases. However, protections such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans have already been terminated, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirming the change in May. Criticism from lawmakers and rights advocates The announcement triggered strong criticism from Democratic leaders. Representative Don Beyer posted on X: 'From his first Muslim Ban, Trump's travel bans have always betrayed the ideals and values that inspired America's Founders.' Representative Pramila Jayapal said: 'This discriminatory policy... will be harmful to our economy and our communities that rely on the contributions of people who come to America from this wide range of countries.' She added: 'Banning a whole group of people because you disagree with the structure or function of their government... creates a dangerous precedent.' Jayapal also highlighted the inclusion of countries like Afghanistan, where many worked with US troops during its military presence. These individuals now face being barred from the very country they helped. What makes this ban different from 2017? Unlike the 2017 version — which mainly focused on Muslim-majority countries and was later expanded to include North Korea and Venezuela — the 2025 ban is broader. It also brings Haiti into the fold, a notable shift given the racialised and false narratives Trump's allies spread during the 2024 campaign. For instance, Trump's running mate JD Vance had claimed Haitian immigrants in Ohio were 'eating the pets of the people that live there.' Despite 200,000 Haitians having been granted TPS under the Biden administration, Trump's proclamation frames their presence as a threat, falsely alleging: 'Hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration.' While the proclamation allows for future revisions, the criteria remain vague. Trump has said the list could be updated based on whether 'material improvements' are made by the affected nations. Until then, millions of people—students, workers, families, and asylum-seekers—must reckon with the implications of being locked out. For many, it's not just a legal obstacle. It's personal. And it's political. Whether courts or Congress intervene remains to be seen. But for now, the new travel ban stands as one of the most consequential acts of Trump's return to the White House.
