No OBC quota in JU admission
Kolkata: Jadavpur University has decided not to admit students under the OBC category this year, citing the ongoing Supreme Court case.
The Calcutta High Court in May 2024 scrapped all new OBC categorisations in Bengal after 2010, saying the authorities "practised protective discrimination in deviation of constitutional norms".
The SC is hearing the state govt's appeal.
In 2024, JU had asked candidates admitted under the OBC-A and OBC-B categories to submit an undertaking on a non-judicial stamp paper, stating that their admission will be revoked if their OBC certificates become invalid in the future. The university has written to the higher education department but has not received any suggestion. Recently, a notice for the admission to the bachelor programme of library science course has been published where there is no provision for OBC reservation.
"We have taken the decision following legal advice," said an official.
Meanwhile, the HC heard a PIL where it was pointed out that several universities were still following the reservation for OBC-A and OBC-B categories in violation of the May 2024 judgment, citing examples from JU. Calcutta University had also written to the higher education department seeking advice. But it too has not received any directive yet. St. Xavier's principal Fr. Dominic Savio said, "We have been having SC, ST and OBC category students from the beginning or from the time we got autonomy.
"
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
11 years : 11 achievements
4th largest economy India has become the world's fourth-largest economy during the PM Modi government. Ram Mandir The Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is one of the key achievements of the Modi govt. This temple is a significant and the main sanctum was consecrated in January 2024. Article 370 In August 2019, Modi took a visionary decision to abrogate Article 370, which allowed J&K to have its own constitution, flag, and control over most internal affairs. Triple Talaq Triple Talaq was an instant divorce practice where a Muslim man could divorce his wife by uttering "talaq" three times. India's Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 2017. Jan Dhan The Modi government launched the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) on August 28, 2014, as a national mission for financial inclusion. GST The Modi government implemented GST in 2017, unifying India's fragmented indirect tax system into "One Nation, One Tax." New Parliament India's new Parliament was inaugurated in 2023 to boost the seating capacity for both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Railways In the railway sector, many developments took place, including the introduction of Vande Bharat to the renovation of many of the old railway stations in a modern way. Airports Under the Modi government, India observed a significant boost in airport development under the UDAN scheme, which was launched on October 21, 2016. Highways The Modi government significantly boosted highway development, expanding the national highway network since 2014. Defence Exports Under Modi government, defence exports have surged to a record high of Rs 23,622 crore in the Financial Year (FY) 2024-25.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
From socialism to market economy-Power over private property
The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Recently, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority (8:1) and wrote: 'India's economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to liberalization and market reforms. The Constitution does not endorse any single economic ideology.' He added that calling all private property 'material resources' forces a rigid socialist theory, which no longer reflects India's democratic economic reality. Are there any limits on power of the government over private property? Can the government seize any private property by calling it a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution? On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case. The ruling settled a long-standing constitutional question: It answered with a clear no, thereby reaffirming individual property rights and limiting government power. This judgment has brought clarity to the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights, and overruled earlier judgments that adopted a broad socialist interpretation of Article 39(b). Ignoring the Directive Principles Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. It says: 'The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.' It encourages laws for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but DPSPs are not legally enforceable—they are only guiding principles. Do we have any Property Rights? Before 1978, right to property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, due to frequent land reforms, bank nationalization, and other socialist welfare measures, the Parliament passed the: 25th Constitutional Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C to protect laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, and 31. 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Further expanded Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b) and (c). But in Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this wider protection, ruling that only Article 39(b) and (c) could remain shielded. Where Article 31C was upheld: In the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Article 31C, but with a caveat — laws passed under it must still pass judicial review. This was to prevent misuse of DPSPs to undermine basic structure principles like judicial independence or fundamental rights. Thus, the Court permitted limited curtailment of property rights, but only in pursuit of the common good as envisaged in Articles 39(b) and (c), and not at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. A 32-year fight for justice: Though justice is upheld in some cases, delay is the biggest problem. The current verdict comes from a petition filed by the Property Owners Association (POA) in Mumbai, challenging Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA), 1976, which permitted the government to acquire 'cessed properties' (old private buildings) for restoration. The POA argued this violated their right to property, and that Article 39(b) had been wrongly used to justify taking over all private property. The case spanned decades and multiple bench references, eventually resulting in this nine-judge bench being formed. Govt cannot acquire private property per se: The Court ruled that not every private property can be called a 'material resource of the community'. Article 39(b) does not give the government a blanket power to seize all private assets for the 'common good'. Material resources- Limited, not universal: The court clarified that 'material resources' must meet specific criteria such as: Belonging in public trust; Having community impact; being scarce or capable of causing harm by monopoly and possessing intrinsic public value like water and minerals, among others. Thus, private homes or businesses do not automatically qualify. Balanced approach to 'distribution' The term 'distribution' under Article 39(b) includes: Government acquisition and redistribution to private parties — only when it benefits the common good. So, laws under 39(b) must meet both public interest and proportionality tests. Survival of Article 31C: The Court confirmed Article 31C still protects laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from Fundamental Rights challenges, but not from judicial review. This limits the misuse of Article 31C as a shield. The court recognized the dramatic shifts like private property, from traditional assets to data and space exploration. The judgment emphasizes the need to respect evolving market realities. Are we reinforcing a market-oriented economic model? It is interpreted that this judgment offers protection for marginalized communities against the unjust acquisition of their small farms and forest lands while promoting responsible management of essential public resources. The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Justice Iyer's opinion was relied on by subsequent Constitution Benches in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing and Mafatlal Industries judgments in 1982 and 1997, respectively; hence, necessitating a reference to the nine-judge Bench. The CJI quoted a 'harsh' observation made by the Chief Justice about Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in a 'proposed judgment'. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting view in Ranganath Reddy (1977) that all private wealth could be treated as public resources. The judgment noted that while Justice Iyer's ideas were rooted in the socialist vision of the 1970s, India's voters have since chosen liberal economic policies. Rejecting the view of Justice Iyer as one presenting a 'particular ideology', the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Chandrachud said India has moved on from socialism to liberalisation to market-based reforms. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge, whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. In separate opinions, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, he had observed that 'the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution'. Dissenting: Justice B.V. Nagarathna: 'Judges must not decry the contributions of their predecessors. The institution is greater than individuals.' Justice Dhulia praised Justice Iyer's humanist vision, saying: 'The Krishna Iyer Doctrine was built on fairness and empathy. In dark times, it illuminated our path.' Though he dissented on interpretational grounds, he recognized the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, balancing rights and welfare. Finally, the November 5, 2024 Supreme Court ruling is a turning point in the constitutional understanding of property rights in India, saying: Individual property rights are protected. The government cannot seize private property arbitrarily. Article 39(b) remains relevant but must be applied with caution and clear public purpose. Article 31C survives, but judicial review cannot be ousted. The Directive Principles must align with fundamental rights, not override them. Courts remain vigilant in preserving constitutional balance between economic justice and individual liberty. This landmark judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's role as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that the state acts for public welfare without violating basic rights. It also recognizes the evolving nature of economic policies in a vibrant democracy, where people, not dogmas, shape the nation's path. (The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Violates fundamental rights': SC sets aside narco test order
A narco-analysis test cannot be conducted on an accused person without their consent, and the results of such tests cannot form the sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Emphasising that the pursuit of modern investigative tools cannot override fundamental constitutional protections, the top court underscored that involuntary narco tests infringe upon the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale set aside a 2023 Patna high court order that had accepted an investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused and witnesses in a dowry harassment case linked to the disappearance of a woman. 'We have no doubt that the impugned order cannot be sustained,' said the bench said, adding that 'under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law.' The court held that the high court erred in accepting the submission of the police for administering the test, noting that it contravened the law laid down in the landmark 2010 ruling in Selvi vs State of Karnataka, where a three-judge bench had declared such techniques unconstitutional if done without consent. 'Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions…Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3)...The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as material evidence in the eyes of the law,' noted the bench. To be sure, a narco-analysis test is a forensic interrogation technique in which a suspect is injected with a psychoactive drug to lower their inhibitions and suppress their reasoning ability, in an attempt to extract information, they might otherwise withhold. The bench further stated that permitting such tests without consent would breach a person's right to privacy and amount to a disproportionate exercise of police powers. The apex court also rejected the state's argument that 'modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour,' saying such measures must never come at the cost of constitutional guarantees. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21,' it said. The Court also clarified that a voluntary narco-analysis test, undertaken at an appropriate stage and with adequate safeguards, may be permissible. However, the outcome of such tests, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction,' held the court, referring to the evidentiary value of discoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The third key issue addressed in the judgment was whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a narco-analysis test voluntarily. As highlighted by senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who assisted the bench as amicus curiae, the bench noted conflicting views from different high courts, including a Rajasthan high court ruling which held that the accused could seek such a test under their right to lead evidence. Rejecting that interpretation, the bench held: 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature... Such a right is not absolute.' Simultaneously, the bench acknowledged that an accused may move an application seeking a voluntary narco test during trial, and if such a plea is made, the concerned court must carefully assess the totality of circumstances, including free consent and necessary safeguards, before allowing the test. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage... However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test,' the judgment clarified. Concluding, the apex court said that the Patna high court's decision to allow narco-analysis at the bail stage was not only premature but outside the scope of what a court considers while adjudicating a bail application. 'It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques,' it added.
