Supreme Court to hear on August 3 pleas seeking transparency in NEET-PG Exam evaluation process
A bench comprising justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria briefly heard pleas on the issues.
One of the pleas, filed through lawyer Tanvi Dubey, challenges the opaque nature of the evaluation system and seeks multiple directions to the National Board of Examinations (NBE), the authority responsible for conducting NEET-PG.
The plea sought the release of question papers and answer keys to candidates, and the disclosure of correct and incorrect questions as assessed.
It also sought a direction for revaluation or rechecking in cases of score discrepancies.
The plea also sought a direction to enable candidates to challenge disputed questions or answers and the institution of transparent evaluation mechanisms for current and future NEET-PG examinations.
The plea alleged a lack of transparency and said it undermined the credibility of such a crucial examination and adversely impacted the rights of candidates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC refuses to hear plea challenging gag order in Dharamsthala case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear a petition challenging a sweeping gag order that restrained media houses from reporting on matters related to the brother of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade of Dharamsthala in Karnataka. The gag order pertained to reports on alleged murder of women in Dharmasthala in the state's Dakshina Kannada district. The plea, filed against an ex parte interim order of a local court, questioned the legality of the directive which directed as many as 390 media houses to remove nearly 9,000 links and stories related to the Dharamsthala burial case. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioner as to why the high court had not been approached. You go the high court first, the CJI said. The gag order was reportedly passed in a defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar, Secretary of Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple institutions, who highlighted the spread of allegedly false and defamatory content online, despite there being no specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR. Recently, Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara asserted that a thorough investigation must precede any conclusions regarding the alleged murder of women in Dharmasthala. Prior to this, the state government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations. The plea in the top court was filed by YouTube channel Third Eye against a Bengaluru court order restraining the publication of any defamatory content against Harshendra Kumar D, brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, in relation to the Dharmasthala temple burial case.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court asks YouTube channel to first approach High Court in ‘Dharmasthala burials' case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) declined to hear a challenge to an 'ex-parte' and 'sweeping gag order' passed by a Bengaluru civil court restraining media outlets from publishing any defamatory material against Harshendra Kumar D., brother of Dharmasthala pattadhikari D. Veerendra Heggade, in connection with the alleged burials in the temple town. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, when the petition was mentioned orally for an early listing, advised advocate A. Velan, appearing for the YouTube channel, Third Eye, to first approach the Karnataka High Court. Also Read | Dharmasthala burials: Ashok says temple should not be tarnished while targeting individuals The petition had sought an interim stay of the civil court order of July 18, which had also directed the media to take down any content already published in connection with the issue. It argued that the civil court 'effectively imposed a sweeping gag order and mandatory content deletion on hundreds of media entities nationwide'. 'This order, secured through a calculated abuse of judicial process and material misrepresentation by the plaintiffs, directly obstructs a high-level State criminal investigation into allegations of mass burials and serious crimes linked to the influential Dharmasthala temple. It is a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and the Press (Article 19(1)(a)) and the foundational principles of natural justice and due process (Article 21),' the petition said. The Karnataka government has already constituted a Special Investigation Team to enquire into the allegations.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
SC Freezes Quick Arrests In Marriage Cruelty Cases, Bats For Two-Month ‘Cooling Period'
The Supreme Court was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer The Supreme Court, while hearing a case where a man and his father spent months in jail after the wife filed several false cases against them, has reaffirmed that no immediate arrests should be made in cases of alleged cruelty by spouses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, a mandatory two-month 'cooling-off" period will be in place before any police action is considered, upholding guidelines first framed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer. Recognising the irreparable harm suffered, the court ordered the wife to issue an unconditional public apology, calling it a measure of moral redress for the wrongful imprisonment sustained by her husband and father-in-law. According to the guidelines, after an FIR is lodged for cruelty in marriage, police authorities must wait two months before taking any coercive action, including arrest. During this period, cases must be referred to Family Welfare Committees set up in every district, which will review the complaints and try to achieve a settlement. Only cases involving offences punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment, including 498A, will be referred to these committees. Each Family Welfare Committee will consist of at least three members and will function as an independent review body before further police intervention is permitted. These directives have their legal roots in the Allahabad High Court's 2022 judgment, which sought to address a worrying trend: the misuse of Section 498A via sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations that could result in entire families—sometimes even extended relatives—being implicated, harassed, and jailed. The Supreme Court, by endorsing these safeguards, has now clarified that such protection is vital to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ensure the criminal justice system is not weaponized in personal disputes. In the case that led to this decision, the matrimonial discord involved a series of litigations in multiple cities, with over 20 different cases related to domestic violence, maintenance, and criminal charges. The bench observed that what the accused had suffered due to the misapplication of the law 'cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner," highlighting the need for systemic procedural reform. Legal experts believe that the cooling period and welfare committee review will help to weed out frivolous and malicious complaints, protect those who may otherwise be wrongly ensnared in criminal proceedings, and focus mediation on reconciliation and fair outcomes. Meanwhile, the core protections for genuinely aggrieved women remain intact, as serious allegations supported by strong evidence can still be acted upon—after the initial review. view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 13:27 IST 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.
