&w=3840&q=100)
Hold NEET-PG exam in single shift instead of two: Supreme Court to NBE
According to a LiveLaw report, the court in its ruling said that conducting the exam in two shifts creates arbitrariness, adding that NBE should make arrangements to hold it in a single shift
Swati Gandhi New Delhi
The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday ordered the National Board of Examination (NBE) to conduct the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Post Graduate (NEET-PG) 2025 exam in one shift, instead of two shifts.
According to a LiveLaw report, the SC in its ruling said that conducting the exam in two shifts creates "arbitrariness", adding that NBE should make necessary arrangements to hold the exam in a single shift and to ensure transparency.
The court in its order stated, "Holding examination in two shifts creates arbitrariness and also does not keep all the candidates at the same level. Any two question papers can ever be said to be of an identical level of difficulty or ease. There has to be a variation."
The court rejected the argument made by NBE that there are not enough centres to hold the exam in a single shift. The apex court ruled, "The exam is to be held all over the country, not just in one city. We are not ready to accept that in the entire country, and considering the technological advancements in this country, the examining body could not find enough centres to hold the examination in one shift."
When questioned why the exam for NEET-PG has to be conducted in two shifts, when the same is not the case for NEET-UG, which has more applicants, NBE stated, "The exam is held online. In 2024, NEET UG had to be cancelled due to malpractice. For the online exam, there are limited centres. All important examinations in which a large number of candidates appear are held like this."
Petitioners' counsel argued in the court that the double-shift exam gives priority to "luck" over "merit". It further claimed that conducting the exam in two shifts violates the rights of the candidates under Article 14 of the Constitution. The plea also referred to the 2024 NEET-PG exam, which was conducted in two shifts and resulted in a case before the apex court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Rajeev Krishna appointed acting DGP of Uttar Pradesh
The Uttar Pradesh government on Saturday appointed 1991-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rajeev Krishna as the new Director General of Police (DGP). Mr. Krishna will lead the State police force in an acting capacity, becoming the fifth consecutive officer to hold the top post in an officiating role. A native of Gautam Buddha Nagar district and a graduate in Electronics and Communication, Mr. Krishna is currently serving as Director General, Vigilance, and DG, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. He began his professional career in the Uttar Pradesh Police as a trainee IPS officer in Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad), and subsequently served as Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) in Bareilly, Kanpur, and Aligarh. He has also held the posts of Superintendent of Police (SP) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in various districts including Firozabad, Agra, Lucknow, and Mathura. Mr. Krishna is scheduled to retire in June 2029. Since May 2022, the State has seen a succession of acting DGPs, with Devendra Singh Chauhan holding the post for 11 months. He was followed by R.K. Vishwakarma, Vijay Kumar, and Prashant Kumar, all in an officiating capacity. Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav criticised the appointment, alleging that the repeated selection of acting DGPs reflects administrative indecisiveness within the ruling dispensation. 'U.P. gets another acting DGP. Today, while leaving, he must be thinking what did he get from proving every wrong to be right. If he had been loyal to the Constitution and the law instead of the person, he would have at least got respect in their own eyes,' Mr. Yadav said in a post on social media platform X. 'Now it remains to be seen whether the new person will be able to free himself from the web that they have woven in the entire State and deliver justice impartially or else he too becomes a victim of politics by getting trapped in the same web,' he added. Mr. Yadav further remarked, 'Why should the people of Uttar Pradesh and the poor law and order situation bear the brunt of the Delhi-Lucknow fight? When the 'double engine' cannot together elect a single officer then how will they run the country and the State?'
The Hindu
41 minutes ago
- The Hindu
political line newsletter speech I hate, but must defend
Unless we defend the rights of both Vijay Shah and Ali Khan Mahmudabad to say whatever they want to, neither can be defended rationally ------ There are two Special Investigation Teams (SIT), each comprising three IPS officers investigating two people, on the directions of the Supreme Court of India: Madhya Pradesh's BJP Minister Vijay Shah and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. The SC order has specified that the SIT in Madhya Pradesh must be of directly recruited IPS officers from outside of the State cadre. The implied equivalence of these two cases in the SC approach — that the police can investigate alleged criminality premised on the idea of excessive speech —has been disconcerting for many people. Those who were outraged by Mr. Shah's comments, which the SC rightly described as 'crass, thoughtless,' wanted legal action against him. Broadly, the same set of people were also outraged by Haryana police arresting Mr. Mahmudabad. The interesting spectacle of six IPS officers trying to parse through the sentences of two people to investigate criminality in them leads us to the question: what exactly is freedom of expression. Can there be selective freedom of expression? Should hate speech be allowed in a civilized society? If some speech must be restricted, who gets to decide what is allowed and what is restricted? As we have seen in recent days, the Congress government in Karnataka and the BJP government in Haryana have different standards of what speech can be allowed. We need to defend the rights of both Mr. Shah and Mr. Mahmudabad. Free speech cannot be restricted to what one person likes; hate speech cannot be defined as what another hates. Unless free speech is absolute, including — and especially — for views that are dissenting and offensive, there is no meaning in it. A police inspector or a random political actor can initiate a case, and the rest will depend on the social capital and relative power of the side that claims to be aggrieved and that of the alleged aggressor. A free speech supporter cannot call for punishment of Mr. Shah and protection for Mr. Mahmudabad. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to 'freedom of speech and expression,' and then goes to add multiple caveats. 'Reasonable restrictions' on free speech include 'the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.' This is echoed in criminal laws and Mr. Mahmudabad was actually arrested on charges of endangering the country's sovereignty and integrity and promoting enmity between different groups, among others, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Article 19 also gives citizens the right to 'assemble peaceably and without arms,' again with caveats similar to those mentioned above. As it happens, the government of Assam has decided to arm indigenous communities. In this case, the state is abdicating its role of providing security and encouraging select groups to arm themselves. This is not new. In Kashmir to fight back separatists, and in Chhattisgarh to neutralise the Maoists, local communities were armed. The broader question is the power of the state to decide what are legitimate arms and what is legitimate speech. In the US, people have much more power than in India to bear arms and to speak freely. There are restrictions there too, but they are more narrowly defined. Arbitrary measures are not unheard of, but some dependable precedents are in place, evolved through judicial disputes over the decades. But the Republicans and Democrats both want to restrict speech in the US — they differ on what kind. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are recurring grounds for restricting speech in many contexts in the West, including by the state. In India, commenting on Hinduism or nationalism can be adventure intellectualism these days. The default liberal position, however, should be that all speech is allowed. If there are any restrictions, they must withstand objective reasoning. Federalism Tract: Notes on Indian diversity Tongue lashing Kamal Haasan is set to enter the Rajya Sabha. But he made news for other reasons. His statement that Kannada is born out of Tamil triggered a reaction in Karnataka. In fact, for all the talk around Dravidian languages and culture, the linguistic pride of each State and conflicts between regions within States have been politically consequential. The Telugus wanted separation from the then Madras State, and their struggle led to the linguistic reorganisation of States. Telugus in Telangana later wanted a separate State for themselves, and they got that. The idea that any language is born from another language is a fallacy that few linguists would take seriously now. Languages interact and migrate along with the people who do the same. The idea that Sanskrit is the mother of all, or many Indian languages, is a common and misplaced notion. Having a heavy load of Sanskrit vocabulary in a language (for instance, Malayalam, my mother tongue) does not make it the child of Sanskrit. It is a more complex process, as linguist and author Peggy Mohan says. I hope, Mr. Haasan watches this too.
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Constitution has kept Indiaunited during crisis: CJI
'Courts Must Reach Out To Every Citizen In Need' Rajesh Kumar Pandey | tnn Prayagraj: The Constitution of India has ensured that whenever the country has faced a crisis, it has remained united and strong, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said on Saturday. Justice Gavai was speaking at the inauguration of the new advocate chambers and a multi-level parking facility at Allahabad high court. This marked his first official engagement as the CJI. "When the Constitution was being drafted, some said it was too federal while some found it too unitary. Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar replied that the Constitution was neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," said the CJI, adding, "Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution." Crediting the Constitution for guiding India on the path of development, Justice Gavai said, "We can see what is the condition of our neighbouring countries while India is making a journey towards development." In the 75-year journey of the Constitution, the legislature, executive and judiciary have contributed a lot in bringing social and economic equality, he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo "It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, executive or judiciary, everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI told the gathering. Referring to the land reforms, he said some laws were brought under which land was taken from the landlord and given to the landless persons. "These laws were challenged from time to time. Before 1973, the Supreme Court's view was that if there is a conflict between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights, then the Fundamental Rights will prevail." "However, in 1973, a 13-judge bench ruled that Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution and for this, it can amend the Fundamental Rights, but it does not have the right to change the basic structure of the Constitution," he said. The 1973 bench also stated that both the Fundamental Rights and the Directives Principles are the soul of the Constitution, said Justice Gavai. Justice Gavai also congratulated judicial officers involved in 'Operation Sindoor' and noted the significance of inaugurating the project on the birth anniversary of Ahilyabai Holkar. "She was a pioneer in social welfare, and it is our constitutional duty to reach the last citizen. The bar and the bench must work in unison to move the chariot of justice forward. Today, the Allahabad High Court has set a shining example -- a true role model," he said. Allahabad HC Chief Justice Arun Bhansali in his welcome address said the newly constructed advocates' chambers and multi-level car parking building will redefine the working environment of this court. "It's not just the inauguration of a building but affirmation of our collective efforts to a stronger and more accessible system of justice," he said. Minister of State, Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal said one should learn from CM Yogi Adityanath how to complete projects quickly. He also praised the CM for the success of Maha Kumbh and said his work was appreciated all over the world. Supreme Court's Justice Vikram Nath said, "Lawyers used to face a lot of problems due to the limited number of chambers and the new building will provide AC chambers to lawyers where they can meet their clients and do their work." He further shared, "I was a member of the building committee of Allahabad HC and we were facing parking and chambers problems. Therefore, we decided to do something and this idea came up that by demolishing 12 official judges bunglow which was adjacent to High Court, we will get enough land to build chambers and parking for lawyers. So I am personally very happy with the completion of this project." Other apex court judges who attended the event included Justice Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Mishra. The advocate general of UP Ajay Kumar Misra and president of high court bar association (HCBA) president Anil Tiwari were also present. Chairman of the building project committee, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, who is a senior high court judge, proposed a vote of thanks. BOX 'Allahabad HC name inscribed in golden letters' CJI BR Gavai described the Allahabad high court as a historic institution whose name is inscribed in "golden letters" in the judicial spectrum. "It is my good fortune that my first programme as CJI is at the Allahabad HC. I have a long-standing and close relationship with Prayagraj. When I joined the Supreme Court in 2019, I formed deep personal bonds with Justices Vineet Saran, Krishna Murari, and later, Vikram Nath," he said. He lauded the rich legacy of the city and the High Court, saying, "Allahabad is spoken of with immense respect. It has given the country stalwarts like Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal Nehru, and literary legends such as Mahadevi Verma, Harivansh Rai Bachchan, Suryakant Tripathi 'Nirala', and Subhadra Kumari Chauhan. The nation also salutes the contribution of freedom fighter Chandrashekhar Azad, whose legacy lives on. " BOX 'I thank CM for commitment to judiciary, public' Praising the new infrastructure at Allahabad HC, Justice Gavai said, "The advocate chambers and multi-level parking facility are outstanding. As far as I know, no court in the world has a facility of this scale and quality. I thank Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for his commitment not only to judges and lawyers but also to the common citizen."
