SC reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile rule for med admissions
The Telangana government had moved the top court challenging the state HC's order holding that the state's permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical and dental colleges only on the ground that they lived outside the state for some time.
Arguing before the bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, Singhvi, defending the rule of the state, argued that Telangana's domicile criteria were rooted in a government rule backed by a Presidential Order. 'Only the state has the authority to define the term permanent resident,' he said and urged that the HC order be set aside.
'Let's take a student born and raised in Telangana, but who moves away briefly for just Class 10 and 11, perhaps to Kota for coaching. What about them?' the CJI asked.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
How Trump's executive order could reshape college admissions and campus diversity across the US
The Trump administration recently issued an executive order requiring universities to publicly disclose detailed information about the race, test scores, and grade point averages of all applicants. This move intensifies an already heated national debate over college admissions, meritocracy, and campus diversity. According to The New York Times , the new data disclosure rules aim to increase transparency but could also shift admissions practices in ways that affect student diversity across the country's most selective institutions. A century-long debate over admissions For more than a century, colleges have grappled with the question of how to admit students fairly. The controversy touches on fundamental issues such as equal opportunity, racial justice, and the definition of merit. Traditionally, many colleges have used holistic admissions processes that consider applicants' life experiences, including race and socio-economic background, to build diverse and inclusive campuses. However, conservative groups argue that such subjective criteria can lead to unfair advantages for certain groups and discrimination against others, particularly white and Asian students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Secret Lives of the Romanovs — the Last Rulers of Imperial Russia! Learn More Undo Supreme Court ruling and new federal requirements In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that considering race in admissions decisions was unconstitutional. This ruling forced universities to overhaul their admissions policies to comply with the new legal framework. Building on that decision, the Trump administration's executive order now requires colleges to report applicant data to a federal database called the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasised that this data will help the public see whether colleges admit students based on merit or race, stating, according to The New York Times, it 'will enable the American public to assess whether schools are passing over the most qualified students in favor of others based on their race.' The pressure to prioritise test scores According to The New York Times , experts warn that this focus on quantitative measures like test scores and grade point averages could unintentionally favour wealthier students who often have access to better preparation and resources from an early age. James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, told The New York Times , 'I think the incentives that this creates are a big deal. It is creating pressure on colleges to focus on higher G.P.A.s and higher test scores.' The history and impact of standardised testing The use of standardised test scores in admissions has a complex history. In the early 20th century, colleges prioritised intangible qualities such as character, leadership, and athletic ability. These factors sometimes served as barriers for certain groups, including Jewish students. After World War II, as the United States faced global competition, universities shifted focus towards academic metrics like the SAT. However, this shift has been challenged by civil rights advocates seeking more inclusive admissions policies. Income and racial disparities in test scores Research highlighted by The New York Times shows significant disparities in test scores tied to family income. For example, students from affluent households are seven times more likely to score at least 1300 on the SAT compared to those from low-income families. Among the high school class of 2024, just 1% of Black students and 2% of Hispanic students scored between 1400 and 1600, the highest SAT range. By contrast, 7% of white students and 27% of Asian students reached that score bracket. Admissions beyond test scores Given these disparities, very few elite colleges admit students solely based on test scores today. They also consider legacy status, special talents, and economic adversity to create a more balanced student body. Boston University professor Anthony Abraham Jack told The New York Times that the new order could push admissions towards a 'quota system for wealthy and white students.' He cautioned, 'If your class is too brown, too poor, then somehow you rigged the system.' Jack stressed the importance of context in evaluating applicants, telling The New York Times , 'If you have a student who gets a 5 in A.P. calculus, that doesn't give you a relative understanding of how good they are. What if they're the only young woman in the entire state to get a 5 in A.P. calc? That tells you how amazing that person is.' What this means for students As the admissions landscape shifts, students and families may find it harder or easier to understand what it takes to gain entry into selective colleges. The Trump administration's push for more standardised, data-driven admissions decisions may narrow the path for many, especially students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds. The debate continues as universities strive to balance fairness, diversity, and academic excellence in an evolving legal and political environment. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Important cases listed in Supreme Court on Monday
Agency: Important cases listed in the Supreme Court on Monday, Aug 11: * SC to hear a plea regarding recall of verdict ordering liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel. *SC to hear plea relating to ex-minister V Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam cases. * SC to hear plea to examine challenge to the validity of extrajudicial divorce like 'Talaq-e-Hasan' among Muslims. * SC to hear plea by former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel in a criminal case. * SC to hear pleas by politicians Pappu Yadav and Derek O Brien challenging SIR in Bihar. *SC to hear plea by activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi L-G VK Saxena in 2000. view comments First Published: August 11, 2025, 08:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
No need for Supreme Court to comment on abilities of high court judges: CJI BR Gavai
NEW DELHI: B R Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line to succeed him, have disapproved of the tendency of judges of superior courts to comment on the knowledge and ability of lower court judges, and said the and high courts are only to correct, modify impugned orders/judgments, or set them aside, if they were perverse. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "The high courts are not subordinate to the SC as both are constitutional courts. SC can only rectify, modify or set aside the orders/judgments of HCs. The Constitution gives no authority to comment on the ability, capability or knowledge of individual judges of HCs," the CJI told TOI. Justice Kant agreed. "Superior court judges must discharge their role as friend, philosopher and guide for lower court judges. In the three-tiered justice delivery system, persuasion and guidance yields better results than criticism and castigation," Justice Kant, who'll take over from Gavai on Nov 24, told TOI. Remarks of the CJI as well as Justice Kant assume significance in the wake of an SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan criticising an Allahabad HC judge for passing "the worst and most erroneous order" and barring him from hearing criminal cases. The bench Friday expunged its directions for de-rostering the judge while requesting the HC chief justice to look into the matter. SC has no authority to dictate rosters of HCs: Justice Kant Endorsing the vision encapsulated in the saying 'a judge who has not committed a mistake is yet to be born', CJI B R Gavai told TOI that the same principle applies to HC judges, who should refrain from castigating judicial officers on the ground of lack of ability, knowledge or capability while hearing appeals against impugned orders authored by them. "They must administratively convey how to improve and in which area. For that, HC CJs concerned have a significant role to play. The role of superior courts in imparting required training to lower court judges in various aspects of adjudication, acquiring knowledge in myriad fields of law and maintaining proper demeanour and decorum in the courtroom will shape the future of the justice delivery system and reinforce people's faith in judiciary," the CJI said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Kant said HC judges and judicial officers come from various social strata and bring with them a wealth of real-life experiences which can be harnessed, modulated and sharpened with legal training to enrich the justice delivery system to meet day-to-day challenges of open court hearing and address grievances of litigants. "On the judicial side, SC has no authority to dictate to HCs which of their judges would hear what types of cases or the manner in which cases are to be decided. It can only lead by example and guide them with its judgments. Allocation of cases to judges and their roster squarely falls in the exclusive domain of the HC CJ concerned," Justice Kant said. CJI Gavai said, "Every constitutional court judge, be it in HCs or in SC, has the constitutional responsibility to do justice in each case, whether criminal or civil or any other field of law. Superior court judges have the onerous duty to maintain civility while passing orders or writing judgments."
