NEET-PG 2025 be conducted in one shift, orders SC; says two shifts create arbitrariness, ET Education
Advt
New Delhi, In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Friday issued directions that the post-graduate medical entrance exam scheduled on June 15 be conducted in a single shift, saying holding it in two shifts "creates arbitrariness".A bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath directed the authorities to make arrangements for holding NEET-PG 2025 exam in one shift and to ensure that complete transparency is maintained and secured centres are identified."Any two question papers can never be said to be having an identical level of difficulty or ease," said the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and N V Anjaria.It said normalisation may be applied in exceptional cases but not in a routine manner year after year.The bench passed the order on pleas challenging a notification on holding the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Post Graduate (NEET-PG) 2025 examination in two shifts.The top court said the total number of candidates who have applied for the examination is 2,42,678 and the test is held all over the country and not in one city."We are not ready to accept that in the entire country and considering the technological advancement in the country, the examining body could not find enough centres to hold the examination in one shift," the bench said."Holding examinations in two shifts creates arbitrariness and also does not keep all the candidates, who take the examination, at the same level," it observed.It said the examination is scheduled for June 15 and there was still more than two weeks for the examining body to identify further centres to hold it in one shift."We accordingly direct the respondents to make further arrangements for holding the examination in one shift and also ensure that complete transparency is maintained and secured centres are identified," the bench said.One of the pleas was filed through advocate Sukriti Bhatnagar. Several lawyers, including advocate Tanvi Dubey, appeared in the matter.The counsel appearing for the respondents, including the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), said even if efforts were made to identify more centres, it might need more time which might result into delay in holding the examinations.The NBEMS is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting postgraduate and postdoctoral examinations in approved specialities leading to the award of Diplomate of National Board and Doctorate of National Board and Fellow of National Board.The respondents said consequently, the counselling might also be delayed which would not be in line with the timeline fixed by the apex court."This argument is also not accepted as there is still sufficient time for the examining body to identify sufficient number of centres for holding the examination in one shift," the bench said.The top court observed it would be open for the respondents to apply for extension of time, if they find they were not able to identify required number of centres.When the counsel for the respondents repeatedly said the process of identifying centres might not be completed by June 15, the bench said they could seek extension of time and the court would consider that."It is for you to identify and pay for it. If you don't want to spend money, it is a different thing," the bench observed.The counsel appearing for the respondents said it was not a question of money."Now you burn little midnight oil and try to find the centres," the bench said."We have given you liberty to seek extension," the bench said, adding, "You have already made up your mind that you are not going to be able to do it without even trying. Try at least".It noted the other issued raised in the plea was regarding disclosure of question papers and answer keys on NBEMS's website after the declaration of results.It said this issue would be considered after the examinations are held and posted the matter for hearing on July 14.The apex court noted that counsel for the respondents have opposed the plea to conduct NEET-PG examination in one shift on two grounds.It said as per respondents, the number of candidates to appear in the exam was too large and it was difficult for the examining body to find secured centres to hold the test in one shift.It said the second ground was that if examinations were held in one shift, unscrupulous elements might get involved and there could be malpractices.During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners said NEET-PG exam was a rank-based test and even one marks would make a huge difference in whether the candidate would get the preferred stream."You tell us why do you hold examination in two shifts?," the bench asked the counsel appearing for the respondents.The counsel said these examinations were held online and there were limited safe centres having required infrastructure.When the counsel appearing for one of the respondents said the schedule fixed by the apex court would be disturbed as holding the examination in one shift within 15 days would be difficult, the bench said, "Don't give this kind of a threat that the whole year will go and this will happen and that will happen".The lawyer appearing for another respondent said they have identified about 445 centres for multi shift examination and if it was to be conducted in one shift, they will have to identify about 900 odd centres. PTI
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Guidelines to protect lawyers from summons is not immunity: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the guidelines proposed to protect lawyers from being summoned by investigating agencies for giving legal advice would not confer immunity on legal professionals who commit a crime. A view of Supreme Court (Sonu Mehta/HT FILE PHOTO) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation during its hearing on a suo motu petition to frame guidelines to shield lawyers from investigating agencies summoning them for giving advice to clients facing criminal prosecution. The court asked the country's two top law officers, Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to study the suggestions received from lawyer bodies and propose the possible directions that can be issued. The matter was taken up by the court following two instances where senior lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal were summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probing the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja. The ESOPs numbering over 22.7 million were valued at ₹250 crore. Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, asked the court not to lay down any guidelines, reasoning that stray incidents such as these were condemnable but should not become the basis for the courts to establish guidelines. 'individual instances should not be sufficient to change the legal framework. As lawyers, we want to be protected. But not everyone may be discharging their duty credibly. There may be a possibility of summoning them within the framework of the law. But any future judicial legislation in this regard will make the task of investigating agencies counter-productive,' Mehta said. The bench said, 'We cannot ignore the recent instances. An eminent lawyer had been issued summons. We have made it clear that there is no protection for any crime. If somebody is assisting the client in destroying evidence, certainly they can be accused of destruction of evidence. But can that be done for giving advice?' The two lawyers' bodies of the Supreme Court - Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) submitted their suggestions to the court. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is also SCBA president, submitted that in cases where the investigation agency has direct evidence against a lawyer, the same can be considered by the magistrate. If the magistrate feels that the evidence is admissible, summons can be issued, Singh said. SCBA secretary Pragya Baghel, who submitted the association's submissions, traced the protection afforded under the law to lawyers that protects privileged communication between the lawyer and client under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that replaced the Indian Evidence Act. Similar protection is also available under the Companies Act. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, assisting the court, pointed out that the guidelines should also address the issue of receiving fees for the legal opinion tendered to a firm or person facing criminal prosecution. Attorney General R Venkatramani, assisting the court in the suo motu proceedings, assured the court that he will examine all suggestions and report back with his observations. The court asked both AG and SG to examine the suggestions and revert on the next date of hearing on August 12, when the bench will consider passing further directions. SCAORA, which had described the ED summons to the two senior lawyers as a 'chilling signal to the legal community', told the court that the unwarranted summons to advocates to disclose information concerning clients involved in criminal proceedings undermines the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship and poses a serious threat to the integrity of India's criminal justice system. Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, who represented SCAORA, pointed out a recent instance from Kolkata where the laptop of a lawyer practising before the Calcutta high court was seized. 'On the laptop, there is not just information about one client but all his clients. It is the lifeline of the lawyer's practice,' Nadkarni said, expressing concern over the search and seizure of lawyers conducted by investigating agencies that need judicial oversight. The submissions handed over by the SCAORA office bearers pointed out that the Bar Council of India rules explicitly prohibit advocates from committing, directly or indirectly, any breach of the obligations to their client, breach of which amounts to professional misconduct. 'The duty to maintain confidentiality is not merely statutory but is deeply embedded in the ethical and professional framework governing advocates in India. Disclosing privileged communication without client consent may constitute professional misconduct and attract disciplinary consequences,' SCAORA said.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Assam Govt orders closure of 28 stone quarries, 18 crushers near Kaziranga
1 2 Guwahati: The state govt has ordered the closure of 28 stone quarries and 18 stone crushers in the Dolamara area near Kaziranga National Park, adhering to a Supreme Court mandate prohibiting mining activities. Furthermore, 10 mining permits and related operations, including stone extraction, sand mahals, and sand-cum-gravel mining contracts in the Rangsali area, have been terminated. This was confirmed by minister of state for environment, forest and climate change, Kirti Vardhan Singh, in a written response to inquiries from Assam MP and deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, Gaurav Gogoi. In "TN Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India & Ors" case, the Supreme Court in its order on April 12, 2019 had directed the Assam DGP and the SP concerned to ensure that no illegal mining and transportation of illegally mined materials took place in the Kaziranga National Park area and in the entire catchment area of rivers or streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flowing into Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. The minister further stated in the Lok Sabha that the govt has taken significant steps to mitigate the risk of road accidents involving wild animals and ecological degradation around Kaziranga. These steps include the construction of underpasses, elevated corridors, and culverts to facilitate the safe passage of animals across highways. The steps, as the minister stated, also include the identification and protection of wildlife corridors to maintain habitat connectivity and minimise the need for animals to cross roads. This is in addition to the installation of eco-friendly barriers and fencing along roads to guide animals toward designated safe crossing points. Implementation of speed-reducing measures such as rumble strips and speed breakers near wildlife crossing zones and putting up cautionary signboards to alert drivers about wildlife presence and enforce speed regulations are other steps taken by the govt. On the issue of the diversion of eco-sensitive land near Kaziranga for commercial or infrastructure projects despite its Unesco world heritage status, the minister said proposals were submitted by the state govt for consideration of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life (SCNBWL) after due recommendation of the State Board for Wild Life. Two proposals for diversion — construction of a four-lane tunnel across the Brahmaputra between Gohpur and Numaligarh and widening and improvement of the existing carriageway to four-lane construction from Kaliabor to Numaligarh — were recommended by the SCNBWL.
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Stays Trial In 2 Cases Involving Azam Khan's Son Abdullah
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court directing Rampur's MP-MLA court to proceed with the trial in two cases linked to former MLA and senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on an appeal filed by Abdullah. On July 23, the high court dismissed two petitions filed by Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards. "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed," the high court said. Abdullah filed separate petitions in the high court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA court. BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a case against Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth. According to the complaint, Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993. Saxena also filed an FIR against Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019. Saxena alleged that Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 assembly elections. Saxena also accused Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections. According to him, Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission. He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.
