WBJEE 2025 results deferred yet again following Calcutta HC contempt order
This latest judicial intervention has sent shockwaves across the academic community, particularly among thousands of engineering and pharmacy aspirants waiting in anticipation for their ranks.
WBJEE 2025: Court bars result release pending review
Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court, in a sharply worded order, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the WBJEE Board on Wednesday. The decision came after candidates alleged that the board had violated the court's May 21 directive, linked to ongoing concerns about admission irregularities and merit list preparation.
As a consequence, the High Court has stayed the declaration of WBJEE 2025 results, as well as all subsequent counselling and admission processes, until a division bench delivers a verdict on the board's appeal.
WBJEE 2025 results: From Supreme Court relief to high court setback
The order comes just weeks after the Supreme Court of India had stayed an earlier High Court judgment that barred the WBJEEB from using the state's revised OBC list for this year's counselling. That Supreme Court ruling had cleared the way for the results to be declared, and WBJEEB had confirmed that the results would go live on August 7, 2025.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Learn More - How Donating Sperm May Boost Your Income
SpellRock
Undo
However, Wednesday's dramatic turn has rendered that plan null and void.
Aspirants left adrift amid legal tug-of-war
Students and parents are once again caught in a state of confusion and anxiety, as the uncertainty surrounding the WBJEE result intensifies. The board had already released provisional answer keys and completed evaluation—meaning the results were ready for publication before the court order halted the process.
The delay in admissions now threatens to clash with other national-level counselling schedules, including JoSAA and private university intakes, complicating matters further for candidates aiming at multiple options.
Next steps: Awaiting division bench decision
With the High Court making it explicitly clear that no further steps may be taken by the board, the focus now shifts to the division bench hearing, which will determine the immediate fate of the WBJEE 2025 admission cycle.
Until then, the West Bengal 2025 results remain frozen, and over one lakh candidates are left in an academic limbo—awaiting justice and clarity in a season already burdened by institutional delays and judicial overhang.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
4 minutes ago
- India Today
How Trump's judicial picks could reshape abortion rights for decades
A review by The Associated Press shows that several of President Donald Trump's nominees to the federal courts have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion have helped defend their state's abortion restrictions in court and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication Trump has said issues related to abortion should be left to the states, the nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White HAS BEEN INCONSISTENT ON ABORTIONadvertisement Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague the years before his most recent presidential campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That's been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to NOMINEES WITH ANTI-ABORTION BACKGROUNDSOne Trump nominee called abortion a 'barbaric practice" while another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.'One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb' in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.''It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she REPRESENT TRUMP'S PROMISES TO AMERICANS: WHITE HOUSE Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said 'every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling.''The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favour of President Trump's common sense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,' Fields said in a statement to the focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND GROUP RESPONDAnti-abortion advocates say it's premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives but that they're hopeful based on the names put forth so far.'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organisation SBA Pro-Life rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he's going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organisation Reproductive Freedom for All.- Ends
The Hindu
34 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Fast-track courts in Delhi fail to fulfil promise of providing speedy justice
The Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), meant to speed up trials in rape and child sexual abuse cases, are underperforming in Delhi, according to data recently presented in the Lok Sabha by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. The national capital figures in a list of States and Union Territories with delayed trials in FTSCs. In a bid to curb crimes against women and children, the Central government had enacted the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, introducing stricter provisions. By March that year, 1,66,882 rape and POCSO cases were pending in courts across the country. Concerned by the backlog, in July 2019, the Supreme Court directed that any district with more than 100 pending POCSO cases must have an exclusive special court to handle them. Acting on this direction, the Central government, in August 2019, launched FTSCs exclusively for cases related to rape and child sexual abuse. Under the scheme, each FTSC is tasked with disposing of at least 165 cases annually. As of June 30 this year, 725 FTSCs, including 392 exclusive POCSO courts, are functional in 30 States and Union Territories. Delhi currently has 16 FTSCs, including 11 exclusively for POCSO matters. Since its inception, 6,278 cases have been institutedin these courts, but only 2,718 have been disposedof as of June 30. Toll on survivors Unnecessary delay in the legal process involving rape cases only serves to prolong the victim's suffering, according to jurists. 'The trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault is profound and enduring, and each moment spent waiting for justice exacerbates their pain,' Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court had observed in a March 2024 ruling related to a rape case. 'This delay in the administration of justice not only interferes with their healing process but also prolongs their journey towards closure and recovery from such a traumatic experience,' Justice Sharma noted. 'Needless delays' Advocate Shilpi Jain, who secured a conviction in just 11 days in a high-profile German tourist rape case in Alwar, Rajasthan, in 2006, says the delays are 'avoidable'. 'Fast-track special courts are not fast at all. These cases rarely have many witnesses. They could conclude in two months if there's seriousness,' Ms. Jain stated. 'As far as rape cases are concerned, there is rarely any eyewitness. Cross-examination is never lengthy. So it should conclude in two months,' she said. 'The spirit behind setting up FTSCs was that these courts must finish the cases much before regular courts. But, they end up becoming the same,' she commented, attributing delays to a lack of seriousness, which has to come from the State. 'Political gimmick' Meanwhile, senior advocate Rebecca John questioned the very premise of FTSCs, calling them a 'political gimmick'. 'I have been a long-term opponent of FTSCs. How many cases can you fast-track? The docket is overflowing with cases. When you fast-track one case, it is at the cost of another case,' the senior advocate told The Hindu. 'It is nothing but a political gimmick which is employed from time to time to satisfy public outrage, but nothing comes out of it. There is no substitute for more infrastructure. You can't pull out the same judges from the same pool and give them a few cases, and say fast track it,' Ms. John underscored.
Deccan Herald
2 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
Drop harsh provisions against teen sexuality
At the heart of the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act of 2012 is the question of the age of consent for sexual relationships. A strong case has been made to reduce the age of consent from the present 18 to 16 in view of the current realities of adolescent behaviour, social change, and the consequences of the existing law. The law criminalises a sexual relationship between those under 18 in any circumstance. The Act aims to protect children from sexual abuse and prevent crimes like child trafficking. But the law is also used for parental and social control of children and to inhibit their natural growth and punish them for it. .During the hearing, the Central government opposed the lowering of the age and granting of any exception for consensual sexual relationships between adolescents as it would dilute 'the statutory presumption of vulnerability' underlying the POCSO Act. It said that an exception would increase the risks of trafficking and other forms of child abuse. The government has taken a hard patriarchal position in line with its socially conservative thinking on man-woman and family relationships. Senior lawyer Indira Jaisingh, the amicus curiae appointed by the court, has told the court that consensual sexual relationships between adolescents should not be criminalised. She has urged the court to read a close-in-age exception into the law. The Law Commission, in a recent report, said some changes were required in the law, though it did not recommend the lowering of the age of consent. .No law should be rigid, and laws should move with the times. Adolescents now attain puberty earlier than in the past and form romantic and sexual relationships of their choice. It is wrong to curb their freedom and natural development. But such relationships lead to criminal prosecution with boys being sent to jail and girls to shelter homes. Going by the law, a kiss between a boy and a girl can lead to a 10-year jail term for the boy. Parents of girls usually lodge complaints when the boy and the girl elope. The law needs softening--consenting physical relationships should be decriminalised. In 2022, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court sought a review of the criteria in view of 'ground realities''. The Justice J S Verma commission report, which led to changes in the POCSO Act, favoured the lowering of the age of consent. The legal age of consent is 16 or lower in many countries. The law needs to be more human and realistic.
