Make Staff Selection Commission exam portal blind-friendly: Delhi High Court
The case was filed by Santosh Kumar Rungta of the National Federation of the Blind. In the plea, he pointed out that exams such as the Combined Graduate Level (CGL), Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL), and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) for 2025 require candidates to upload live photographs via face recognition.However, for some blind candidates, this is not physically possible.'These candidates are being left out not because of merit, but because of a system that isn't built for them,' the plea argued. It called the current portal setup a violation of basic rights under the Constitution.To support his argument, the petitioner submitted 60 email complaints from visually impaired individuals who were unable to complete their applications due to the portal's design. The court directed the SSC to examine these emails and address the grievances mentioned.'We request the SSC to look into the grievances mentioned in these 60 emails. The larger issue raised in the petition will be examined in the context of future examinations,' the bench stated. It added that a long-term solution was necessary, but the current problems also needed quick attention.The court also directed SSC officials to meet with the petitioner and resolve these concerns in person. 'There are real issues that need to be resolved. In the future, be more mindful. Come with your plans for future exams,' the judges added.The matter will now be heard again on November 12. The court made it clear that it expects SSC to come prepared with concrete steps toward building a more accessible digital application process for all candidates, especially those with visual impairments.(WITH INPUTS FROM PTI)- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Delhi HC upholds Medha Patkars conviction in defamation case by LG Saxena
New Delhi, Jul 29 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi LG V K Saxena in 2000. Justice Shalinder Kaur said the trial court order, against which Patkar had approached the high court, did not require any interference. 'Upon perusal this court finds no illegality in the order (by trial court) and requires no interference, and (appeal) accordingly dismissed," Justice Kaur said. Saxena filed the case 23 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat. The high court said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law. It said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The judge also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on 'probation of good conduct", and said it did not require any interference. Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison. The high court, however, modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through VC or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances. The court also dismissed Patkar's plea against dismissal of her application to introduce and examine an additional witness to prove her defamation case lodged against Saxena. While 70-year-old Patkar was represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, advocate Gajinder Kumar argued on behalf of Saxena. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case. The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on 'probation of good conduct"on furnishing a probation bond of Rs 25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing Rs 1 lakh as fine. The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000. On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also 'crafted to incite negative perceptions" about him. The accusation that the complainant was 'mortgaging" the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said. On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was 'rightly convicted" and there was 'no substance" in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case. PTI UK ZMN view comments 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.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC upholds Medha Patkar's conviction and sentence in L-G VK Saxena's 2000 defamation case
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction and sentence of activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case brought by now Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena against her in 2000. Patkar was accused of making defamatory statements against Saxena in 2000, labelling him a 'coward', and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions. A magistrate court held the statements to be defamatory on May 24, 2024, and on July 1, 2024, Patkar was sentenced to a five-month jail term and was directed to pay a Rs 10 lakh fine. Appealing against the conviction, Patkar had approached the sessions court, which dismissed her appeal on April 2 and upheld the conviction. The sessions court, however, reduced the punishment from a five-month jail term to a one-year probation, and the fine from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 1 lakh in an order on April 8. Pronouncing the verdict in open court, Justice Shalinder Kaur upheld the conviction and sentence while only modifying a condition of the probation. The sessions court had stipulated that Patkar shall appear before the trial court once every 3 months. The Delhi High Court modified this, granting Patkar the liberty to appear physically or virtually or be represented through an advocate during such appearances before the trial court. 'This court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court/appellate court. The order under challenge appears to have been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record and the applicable law. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate glaring defects from following the procedure or manifest error on the point of law resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice that would justify interference by this revisional jurisdiction…,' Justice Kaur held. A detailed order is awaited to be made public.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Delhi HC upholds Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday maintained the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed against her by V.K. Saxena – now Lieutenant Governor of Delhi – back in 2001. A single-judge Bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur rejected the revision plea filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar, challenging a Saket Court's order that had earlier dismissed her criminal appeal and upheld her conviction. Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Medha Patkar failed to point out any procedural defect that would amount to a miscarriage of justice in the case, noting that her conviction was based on due consideration of the evidence and applicable law. However, in a bit of relief to Patkar, the Delhi High Court modified the probation condition requiring her to appear before the trial court every three months, permitting her to appear virtually or be represented by an advocate. Further, it refused to entertain Medha Patkar's plea challenging the dismissal of her application to introduce a new witness in her defamation case against Saxena. In 2001, Saxena filed two defamation suits against Patkar— one over allegedly derogatory remarks made during a television interview, and the other concerning a press statement. The legal tussle arose from an earlier suit filed by Patkar in 2000, accusing Saxena of publishing defamatory advertisements targeting her and the NBA. In July last year, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma sentenced Patkar to five months in jail and ordered her to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to Saxena. On appeal, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh of the Saket Court upheld Patkar's conviction but ordered her to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to prior deposit of a compensation amount of Rs 1 lakh, which will be released in favour of the complainant (Saxena). It had opined that an insensitive approach towards others' reputation and abuse of the right to free speech must be met with criminal sanction, adding that Patkar, being herself a person of repute, must know the value of one's reputation and how defamation can result in loss of face and public esteem of the victim. Advocate Gajinder Kumar, along with advocates Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar, Drishti, and Somya Arya, represented L-G Saxena before the Delhi High Court.
