Move supreme court on domicile issue in medical admissions, AP high court suggests petitioners
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Arguing on behalf of the state govt, advocate general Dammalapati Srinivas told the high court that the state govt is deciding the domicile status based on the Presidential Orders. He said that according to the Presidential Orders, the students who have contiguous four years of education prior to the date of the eligibility test are considered locals. He said that the Presidential Orders are coming in the way of the state govt to make a decision in the case of the petitioners.
The high court bench, headed by Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao, agreed with the submissions of the advocate general and suggested the petitioners approach the Supreme Court on the issue. The bench said that a detailed order will be given on Thursday.
One Sk Khamaruddin from Prathipadu in Guntur district moved the high court for not allowing him for counselling under the local quota. A similar petition was filed by one Sanapal Venkata Ramana from Kotabommali in Srikakulam and 71 others on the same grounds. The court earlier directed the NTR University of Health Sciences to allow the applications with the condition that the validity of the applications will be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
State doubles down on 6-6-5 matrix for Scheduled Castes, plans panel to monitor reservation
Bengaluru: Barely 24 hours after a special cabinet meeting which decided on a 6-6-5 formula for internal reservation among Scheduled Castes, chief minister Siddaramaiah said the govt will set up a Permanent Scheduled Castes Commission to periodically study socio-economic mobility of communities and recommend changes in the quota structure. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Making a formal statement in the assembly Wednesday, Siddaramaiah clarified that the govt had not rejected the Justice HN Nagamohan Das Commission report as alleged by the opposition. "The govt is pleased to place before this House that the report of Justice Nagamohan Das has been accepted with modifications," Siddaramaiah said. "We believe that this decision will do justice to the decades-long struggle for internal reservation." He said the got will soon begin recruitment under the new matrix, with a one-time relaxation in age limit. He also said cases filed against activists who fought for internal reservation will be withdrawn and future revisions in quota distribution would be based on data from the upcoming national census. He said restructuring of the Commission's report was intended to ensure fairness. "These changes were made to ensure equality and fairness in access to education, employment and other opportunities for all 101 Scheduled Castes. In making this decision, the cabinet has adhered to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment," he said. Detailing modifications, Siddaramaiah said: "Communities identified by the Commission as Left-Hand section will be provided 6% internal reservation; the Commission had grouped castes such as Paraya and Mogera (Right-Hand) with the Left-Hand section. The cabinet decided to retain these communities with the Right-Hand group, and therefore, 6% reservation will be given to the Right-Hand section." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Nagamohan Das had suggested 4% reservation for touchable castes and 1% for 59 castes with a combined population of 5,22,099, categorised as sub-group A. Siddaramaiah said the cabinet had merged these two categories for administrative reasons and provide 5% reservation together. Siddaramaiah said the govt's move was consistent with constitutional provisions and referred to Supreme Court judgments to assert that the state govt has the authority to sub-classify SCs. While Congress hailed the decision as a milestone in social justice, opposition BJP said the framework was prepared by its govt earlier and Congress was only rehashing and presenting it again. With speaker UT Khader disallowing a debate, BJP members staged a walkout in protest. Deputy CM DK Shivakumar remarked: "We have resolved an issue that was pending for 25 years. The Scheduled Caste community is happy. I appeal to you (opposition) to be happy too." Khader said that while the opposition's demand for a debate was valid, the govt was also within its rights to refuse. He said the matter may be taken up on Friday if time permits.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
State will be at whim of Governors if bills held up: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the 'whims and fancies' of a nominated office-bearer. Tushar Mehta insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances' The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word 'withhold' in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to 'fall through' without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, 'withhold' assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval 'This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him,' submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to 'a mere post office'. The bench, however, pushed back. 'If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial,' the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. 'Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor,' it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain 'frozen in time' and must be informed by experience. 'When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated…But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today.' The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. 'The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,'said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to 'complications and disputes'. Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances', including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. 'His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases,' he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to 'withhold' could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. 'If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?' the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. 'The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?' it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must 'declare' or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term 'withhold' and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. While making clear on Tuesday that it is only rendering an advisory opinion and not sitting in appeal over its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of 'withhold' under Article 200, and whether such discretion can amount to an absolute veto, will be central to its opinion.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Will the new Online Gaming Bill spell disaster for India's betting platforms?
The government's new online gaming bill may halt online betting. It follows a pattern of stifling industries instead of regulating them. Earlier, commodity futures and forex markets faced similar fates. The move comes before a Supreme Court ruling on gaming legality. The court will decide on skill versus chance and GST issues. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads We have done it again. All the king's men have come together to exorcise an old ghost, another spectre of 'foreign influence', that could have been tamed, harnessed and used to our advantage. Instead, we let it haunt us for years. And then in one fell swoop, we break in to cleanse and lustrate ourselves, treading the familiar path of least resistance with righteous claims to protect the poor, the Indian culture and the moral fabric of the the leitmotif of a governance style: kill it, if you cannot regulate it. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill has again brought it to the the Bill becomes a law, it would mark the end of the road for online betting on games like poker or rummy, or wagers on various outcomes - from what could be the bitcoin price in the next 24 hours to a wicket in the next what if it is 'game over' for some betting platforms that hire cricketers and actors to lure people with little money, clueless about what they are betting on? Perhaps no big deal. What, however, is startling is the way New Delhi moved in to crush an industry after letting it grow, attract investments and hire thousands, without trying to find a way to discipline the trade. Like cryptocurrencies, GoI, while shy to regulate gaming, has been nonetheless vocal in taxing rush to squeeze a complex business without sensing its potential is not confined to gaming. Commodity futures were clamped down out of fear it would raise grain prices, for decades, India behaved like the proverbial ostrich as betting on the rupee flourished in Singapore, London and Dubai, and, more recently, a regulatory paranoia killed the forex futures market. Today, stifling taxes and reluctant bankers are pushing crypto trades overseas. We either tactlessly drove markets underground or 'exported' them to other countries. And while this went on, various stock options products were floated to entice retail investors who routinely lose real-money gaming (RMG) story could have played out differently. No gov should ignore reports of farmers ending their lives or the poor, led up the garden path with glitzy ads and deceptive promises, falling into debt traps. But these harrowing incidents could have been avoided with rules and gatekeepers: persons below a minimum income or net worth could have been shunned from the gaming wonderland, sizes of bets could have been lowered, and the number of bets a person can place in a month could have been capped by improvising the platform Nadu, Karnataka, Sikkim, Nagaland and other states with gaming frenzy could have come together with GoI, burying their differences, to decide the rules of the game and find common ground to address painful social everyone dug in their heels. Like many issues, gaming too turned political. States clung to their right as gaming - whether gambling, entertainment or digital sport - is a 'state subject'. GoI kept it in a limbo for a long time. And a fragmented, cut-throat world of gaming companies, fuelled by private equity money, turned greedy, refusing to settle for lower volumes and player India could have housed an RMG hub in the GIFT City, inviting foreigners and residents to bet. We may want to be another Singapore and not Macau, but there's no harm if we can be both, and it would be a pity if we are neither. While the Bill wants to foster 'social games' and 'e-sports', these benign pastimes may not transform into a vibrant, bankable Bill's timing was impeccable: a day before the current Parliament session ends and well before the Supreme Court verdict expected before the House resumes in winter. The apex court would rule on multiple matters: whether poker and rummy are a game of 'skill' or 'chance', the huge retroactive GST claim on the industry, and the fate of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts' decisions that thwarted the two state Bills - similar to the one drafted by GoI - to curb SC sets aside the HC rulings, it would squash any hope the industry harbours. If it upholds HC rulings, or rules out a blanket ban on RMG, it could put a question mark on the new Bill and come as a glimmer of hope to the trade. Either way, the Bill may be challenged on expected grounds: GoI's legislative competence to act on a state subject, restricting the right to trade, and arbitrarily bundling the games of skill and chance. What would the top court do? Well, that is an outcome no gamer has the skill to predict - it's an unmixed game of ambush Bill tailed by a guessing game over a future court ruling can liven up conversations and enthral viewers of the 9 o'clock news. But does it bode well for business?
