SC allows NBE to reschedule NEET-PG 2025 exam to August 3
New Delhi [India], June 6 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday granted extension to the National Board of Examination (NBE) for holding the NEET-PG examination on August 3, 2025. The exam was initially scheduled to be held on June 15 this year.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Augustine George Masih clarified that no further extension will be granted to NBE in this regard.
'We are satisfied that the prayer for extension of time is bona fide. Accordingly, the time allowed by our dated May 30, for holding the examination is extended', the Court said in its order.
On May 30, the Supreme Court ordered that the NEET PG examination be held only in a single shift. Subsequently, the NBE moved an application in the top court seeking an extension of time to reschedule the examination on a later date, as fresh arrangements would have to be made to comply with the single-shift order.
The bench had rejected the decision of NBE to hold the exam in two shifts, saying it creates 'arbitrariness'.
The bench had also stated that it will be open for NBE to apply for extension of time if they find that the arrangements can't be done by 15 June, the scheduled date of the exam.
During the hearing today, counsels appearing for the NBE and the Centre stated that fresh steps need to be taken to make arrangements for holding the exam in a single shift.
'The total strength of candidates appearing for the exam is two lakhs 50 thousand, and there are only 450 centres. So we need to ensure that more centres are made available and security parameters are put in place,' the counsel argued.
He further argued that time is needed for giving opportunities to the candidates to choose centres according to their locations, now that the examination is being held in a single shift.
After hearing the submissions, the Court allowed the NBE to conduct the examination on an extended time of August 3. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants
By Chris Strohm, Myles Miller and Bob Van Voris Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration to a prison in El Salvador, has been brought back to the US to face federal charges that he illegally transported undocumented immigrants within the country. Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee in May, according to court filings. He appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was returned to the US, ABC reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation determined that he was member of the criminal gang MS-13 and a 'danger to our community.' Abrego Garcia's case became a lightning rod over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which have seen the administration move to ramp up deportations of undocumented migrants. The Supreme Court had told the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country,' Bondi said at a press conference in Washington. 'Upon completion of sentence we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.' The US is seeking to have Abrego Garcia detained as a flight risk and a danger. The charges could result in him spending the rest of his life behind bars, prosecutors said. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, said in an emailed statement. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the constitution guarantees to all persons.' According to court documents, Abrego Garcia's role, with other unidentified people, was to pick up migrants in the Houston area after they'd illegally crossed the border into Texas, then move them to other parts of the country. Abrego Garcia and other members of the group also allegedly transported guns and drugs illegally purchased in Texas into Maryland. Before he was removed from the country, an immigration judge had ruled that Abrego Garcia could not be sent to his home country of El Salvador, finding that he would be at risk of harm under the Convention Against Torture. The government later admitted he'd been deported to El Salvador in error. After he was removed from the country in March, his lawyers asked a federal court in Maryland to order his return to the US. Abrego Garica was initially kept in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, but was later moved to another facility. On April 10, the US Supreme Court agreed with US District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia shouldn't have been deported and ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his release from Salvadoran custody. Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele initially responded by claiming they had no power to return Abrego Garcia. Xinis then ordered the government to answer questions detailing its efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. A US appeals court upheld the order in a harshly critical opinion on April 17. 'Thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued,' Bondi said Friday. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democratic senator who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said that the administration will now 'have to make its case in the court of law.' 'For months the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution,' Van Hollen said. 'Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
TOI Exclusive: Junior wrestlers handed ban in fake birth-certificate scam; MCD admits lapse
Representative image (ANI Photo) Nearly 30 suspended after probe shows 100 false documents issued from identical addresses, revealing coach-MCD official nexus NEW DELHI: In a major age-fraud case, the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) announced a ban on nearly 30 junior wrestlers after they were found to have procured and submitted fake birth certificates, predominantly obtained from areas under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi 's (MCD) Narela and Rohini jurisdictions among its 12 administrative zones. Fake birth certificates of the junior athletes procured from identical addresses came to light after a TOI investigation revealed a network involving wrestlers, coaches and officials from the MCD, all working in collusion within the Capital's municipal zones that border neighbouring Haryana. Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW! Additionally, Yash Kumar, a reigning Khelo India Youth Games (KIYG) gold medallist in men's 80kg freestyle, has been directed to undergo a 'bone test' to determine his actual age following revelations of repeated tampering with his date of birth (DOB) on his Aadhar card. Until the medical verification process is concluded, Yash will not receive any Khelo India incentives. Yash, who according to the federation is physically over 20 years of age was recently disqualified from representing Delhi in an under-17 national wrestling competition on the grounds of being overage. Poll How serious do you consider the issue of age fraud in sports to be? Extremely serious. Somewhat serious. Not serious at all. As per the investigation, the examination of documents involving at least 100 wrestlers revealed inconsistencies between addresses and birth dates on their registration certificates and the information provided to the WFI. The governing body is now scrutinising around 400 cases from Haryana alone in which young athletes are suspected of using fake certificates from Delhi to become eligible for younger age-group events. The main objective appears to be securing college admissions and potential government jobs. Passports given to the WFI revealed residential addresses in Rohtak, Jhajjar, and Sonepat. The WFI made queries to several zones of the Municipal Corporation of Haryana (MCH), as well as the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB), exposing the extensive scale of the age-fraud case. It was revealed that nearly all wrestlers under review had secured fake birth certificates from identical place of registration – in Begumpur under the Narela jurisdiction and Mangolpuri in the Rohini zone. A detailed scrutiny of original birth certificates from Haryana municipal authorities, as well as passports, revealed actual birthplaces and addresses in Rohtak, Jhajjar, and Sonepat, in addition to differing DOBs. Most of the wrestlers were born between 2006-2009 but had birth certificates registered in 2021-2022, indicating a disparity of nearly 14-15 years. Virat Kohli's love for 'dhaba' food, priority for family & more | RCB bus driver shares stories In one instance, Dipanshu cited his DOB as 26/10/2009, with a birth certificate registration date of 06/01/2021, obtained from one of the same addresses – Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur, North West Delhi 110086. The federation checks with the department of health services, Municipal Corporation Rohtak, revealed his true DOB as 16/10/2006, with his home in Rainak Pura village, Rohtak. Similarly, national-level wrestler Rohit Gulia was found to have manipulated personal data repeatedly, including DOB changes and unauthorised Aadhar updates (seven times from 2013 to 2021). His official birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Rohtak documented his DOB as 17/10/1999, while he declared it as 17/10/2001 in national competitions. Both Dipanshu and Rohit have now been banned by WFI from all future tournaments. WFI president Sanjay Singh has written to Delhi chief minister Rekha Gupta to act against MCD officials. 'What is particularly alarming is the frequency of such (false) certificates being issued after a considerable lapse of time. This is contrary to the normal practice, wherein birth certificates are typically issued within one- or two-months following birth. The Narela zone, situated close to the Haryana border, has seen a disproportionately high number of such delayed issuances. I urge your office to kindly direct the concerned authorities in all MCD zones to exercise strict scrutiny and restraint in issuing birth certificates where the application is made after an unusually long delay,' he added. MCD has admitted to the lapse and said it will probe this issue.
