Supreme Court decides to wait a day for Kerala government's take on KEAM 2025 revised rank list
A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha made it clear that the court's interference would be minimal and based on legal principles and not on facts.
'We are very clear... We are not going to interfere in any existing selection, appointment processes. The country is plagued with this problem of uncertainty as every exam, every appointment comes under challenge and gets delayed. We will consider this case on principles, but so far as facts are concerned, we will not interfere,' Justice Narasimha addressed the parties in the court room.
Scheduling the case for hearing for July 16, the court instructed Kerala State counsel C.K. Sasi to take instructions from the government and apprise the Bench.
Original prospectus
The original prospectus for KEAM 2025, which was held between April 22-30, had prescribed that the marks obtained in 10+2 in respect of Maths, Physics and Chemistry would be in the ratio of 1:1:1.
However, the Kerala government had constituted a Standardisation Review Committee on April 9 to study the method and formula used to calculate standardised/normalised marks of KEAM-2025 and to suggest any changes. The committee had submitted its report on June 2.
Following which, the State, taking into consideration the committee report and the suggestions given by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, decided to amend the ratio for subject marks in KEAM 2025.
On July 1, the State ordered that the marks obtained in 10+2 for Maths, Physics and Chemistry would be taken in the ratio of 5:3:2 instead of the earlier 1:1:1. The existing 50:50 ratio for marks obtained in the entrance examination and 10+2 Board examination would continue. The State published the KEAM rank list the same day.
On July 10, the High Court directed the reversion to 1:1:1 as provided in the original prospectus. The High Court had reasoned that the modification to the standardisation formula was made belatedly, after the conclusion of the entrance examination and merely an hour prior to the publication of the rank list. The High Court had found the timing both arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The revised rank list was published on July 11.
Appearing for the State syllabus students on Tuesday, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Zulfiker Ali P.S., argued that the State was empowered to make the amendments to original prospectus to create a 'level playing field for candidates of the State Board and the CBSE'.
'The old standardisation formula [prior to the amendment to the original prospectus] was disproportionate and disadvantageous to the majority of students studying under the State syllabus in government schools. It is important to note that in Kerala government school students predominately come from middle and lower-income backgrounds,' Mr. Bhushan contended.
Justice Narasimha remarked the 'new rule balances much better than the earlier one' but questioned the timing of the modification to the standardisation formula in July, months after the KEAM exam and just before the declaration of the results.
'The issue is we do not doubt the new rule, but when you introduce a new policy... can you do it all of a sudden? Do you not have to declare it first and say it will be implemented from next year…' Justice Narasimha asked advocate Bhushan.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Aljo Joseph, on a caveat for CBSE students, highlighted that the formula was revised an hour before the publication of the rank list on July 1.
Mr. Bhushan said the problem of disparity between the State syllabus students and their CBSE counterparts had been flagged by the Controller of Examinations in 2024 itself. He said the High Court order had affected a large number of students in Kerala while seeking urgent relief.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: 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.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
As Assam CM defends eviction drives, Opposition sniffs ploy to clear space for corporate houses
Jiten Gohain is the head of one of 218 families evicted during a drive the authorities in Assam's Lakhimpur district carried out on July 3 to reclaim 78 acres of Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land across four locations. On July 8, the district's Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee approved the allotment of 1.5 kathas (4,320 sq. ft) of land each to 21 families evicted, in one of the fastest such exercises. Among them were 12 belonging to the Ahom community, which is seeking Scheduled Tribe status, to which Mr. Gohain belongs. District Commissioner Pronab Jit Kakoty said the eviction drive was conducted following 'due process'. He said the affected families, which failed to produce land ownership documents, were served notices on June 29. 'I had a larger plot from where we were evicted, but the government has at least provided some space,' Mr. Gohain said. Abul Hasan Sheikh, one of some 200-odd Bengali-speaking Muslim families evicted from Lakhimpur, is not sure if the government would be equally 'generous' to provide him an alternative plot. He is originally a resident of western Assam's South Salmara-Mankachar district along the border with Bangladesh. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma named him and at least a dozen others from faraway districts – most of them Muslim-majority – to underline the alleged 'agenda of demographic invasion by strategically occupying lands in areas dominated by indigenous communities'. 'An analysis has revealed that the families evicted from Lakhimpur included 76 from Barpeta, 63 from Nagaon, seven from Goalpara, and two from South Salmara-Mankachar. Why should someone from South Salmara go to Lakhimpur instead of going to West Bengal, about 50 km away?' Mr. Sarma told reporters on Tuesday. 'Voter list deletions' The Chief Minister said more than 50,000 people have been evicted from 'protected areas, wetlands, VGR and PGR (Professional Grazing Land), government khas (land owned by the government that has not been settled) and wasteland, and those belonging to satras (Vaishnav monasteries) and namghars (prayer halls)' over the past few weeks. According to the State's Revenue and Disaster Management Department, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1986, the Land Policy of 1989, and a 2011 Supreme Court judgment mandate protection of government and village common lands. It also cites the violation of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 2010 as a punishable offence. After the BJP came to power in Assam in May 2016, the first eviction drive was carried out in three fringe villages of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. Two persons, including a minor girl, were killed during the eviction based on a Gauhati High Court order in September 2016. 'Most of those evicted are listed as voters in places from where they came. We have asked the authorities from where they were evicted to delete their names from the electoral rolls to eliminate duplicate names,' Mr. Sarma said. Citing the case of the 12 Ahom families, the All Assam Minority Students' Union has demanded rehabilitation for the evicted Muslim families. It claimed many people had lands they were evicted from before these were declared as reserve forests. The Opposition parties have criticised the eviction drive for disproportionately targeting the minority communities. 'The Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission should take note of the eviction during the court holidays in Assam to target poor Muslims. The government must first provide adequate rehabilitation and only then undertake eviction,' All India United Democratic Front MLA Rafiqul Islam said. 'The BJP government has been projecting the evicted people as Bangladeshi. The government provided a compensation package of ₹14.72 crore to 332 families evicted from Kaziranga. People evicted [in 2021] for the Gorukhuti project [Darrang district] were compensated and given land in the Dalgaon area. Why is the government doing so if these people are Bangladeshi?' Congress leader and advocate Aman Wadud said. Others pointed out that the Dhubri district administration has asked 1,400 families displaced from Chapar town, reportedly to make space for a thermal power plant by the Adani Group, to relocate to a sandbar in the middle of the Brahmaputra river. 'Politics of polarisation' 'The eviction is being carried out for two reasons. Firstly, they want to clear land for corporate houses. Secondly, evicting minorities paves the way for the politics of polarisation... so that the Hindu voters back the BJP, especially in eastern Assam, where it is facing challenges,' Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi said. Lurinjyoti Gogoi, the chief of Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), said eviction drives are a form of the tried-and-tested ploy of weaponising the 'Bangladeshi issue' before the poll. The Assembly poll in Assam is due by May 2026. 'The Chief Minister claims he is doing everything for the indigenous people. In reality, more tribal families have been evicted than the Muslims. In Karbi Anglong, 20,000 Adivasi, Karbi, and Naga families have been evicted to hand over 18,000 bighas of land to the Reliance Group,' the AJP leader claimed. In Assam, one bigha is equivalent to 14,400 sq. ft. He also cited 9,000 bighas of land 'to be handed over to the Adani Group' in Dima Hasao district, 45 bighas 'taken away' from the Adivasis for a hotel project near Kaziranga, and 75 bighas for a Patanjali project in the Golaghat district. 'It is evident why the government is on a land acquisition spree. Of the 49,000 bighas cleared, only 6,000 bighas were under the occupation of the religious minorities,' the AJP leader said.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Thousands Of Afghans, Who Worked With Forces, Secretly Resettled In UK
London: Thousands of Afghans, including many who worked with British forces, have been secretly resettled in after a leak of data on their identities raised fears that the could target them, the British government revealed Tuesday. The government said it is closing the program, which a rare court order had barred the media from disclosing. "To all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today," Defense Secretary John Healey said in the House of Commons. He said he regretted the secrecy and "have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public." Healey told lawmakers that a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of was accidentally released in 2022 because of a defense official's email error. The government only became aware of the leak when some of the data was published on Facebook 18 months later. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring disclosure of the leak, in an attempt to prevent the personal information being made public any further. The High Court issued an order known as a super injunction that barred anyone from revealing its existence. The government then set up a secret program to resettle the Afghans judged to be at greatest threat from the country's Taliban rulers. The injunction was lifted on Tuesday in conjunction with a decision by Britain's current Labour Party government to make the program public. It said an independent review had found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces, and in any case was more concerned with curent threats to its authority. Some 4,500 Afghans - 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members - have been brought to Britain under the program, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of about 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). Around 36,000 Afghans have been relocated to the U.K. under other resettlement routes since 2021. Critics say that still leaves thousands of people who helped British troops as interpreters or in other roles at risk of torture, imprisonment or death. Sean Humber, a lawyer at the firm Leigh Day, which has represented many Afghan claimants, said the "catastrophic" data breach had caused "anxiety, fear and distress" to those affected. Nooralhaq Nasimi, founder of the U.K.'s Afghanistan and Central Asian Association, said "thousands of Afghans who supported the U.K. mission - many of whom placed their trust in this country - have had that trust gravely betrayed." He urged the government to "offer meaningful compensation, and take urgent steps to protect those still at risk." British soldiers were sent to Afghanistan as part of an international deployment against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the peak of the operation, there were almost 10,000 U.K. troops in the country, mostly in Helmand province in the south. Britain ended combat operations in 2014, and its remaining troops left Afghanistan in 2021 as the Taliban swept back to power, two decades after they were ousted. The Taliban's return triggered chaotic scenes as Western nations rushed to evacuate citizens and Afghan employees. Super injunctions are relatively rare, and their use is controversial. Unlike regular court injunctions, super injunctions bar reporting that they were even ordered. The handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Healey said he was not aware of any others. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order had "given rise to serious free speech concerns." "The super injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability, which operate in a democracy," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum."
