Govt scraps EWS quota in private medical colleges
The quota was introduced with no formal announcement; it was merely mentioned in the admission brochure released by the state Common Entrance Test (CET) cell before admissions began recently, a rude shock to parents and students alike.
Parents had sent emails to state medical education minister Hasan Mushrif, and then, along with education activists, met Mushrif on Tuesday to protest the implementation of the reservation.
On Wednesday, the state medical education department walked back the decision to implement the quota. It said the EWS reservation would not be implemented in private medical colleges unless seat capacity increased, a move that aligns with the central government's original 2019 approach.
Activist Sudha Shenoy, part of the delegation who met the minister, said, 'It is now clear that the government is not applying EWS reservation in private medical colleges unless seats increase as per the Supreme Court order.'
Another activist, Brijesh Sutaria, said, 'This is a welcome decision. It protects merit-based access while preserving the intent of social justice. It is a balanced and constitutionally sound approach that other states should also consider.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Tariffs as a tool to extort, and slight India's sovereignty
US President Donald Trump, in an executive order dated July 31, announced imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian imports, on grounds of national emergency and lack of reciprocity. Trump has also said that he would impose an undetermined 'penalty' on India for buying oil and weapons from Russia. This latest measure is further evidence of the complete derision with which the Trump administration deals with its partners and with international law. Insulting a partner's economy by calling it 'dead', as Trump has done with India, undermines the cardinal principles of mutual respect and sovereign equality that are fundamental to international relations. The American penalty threat to India also violates general international laws of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the ICJ. (HT Photo) It is worth noting that India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March 2025. Despite the ongoing negotiations, the Trump administration announced reciprocal tariffs on India in April, which were then put on hold, subject to the sides quickly agreeing to an interim trade deal. The two sides have not reached an agreement on an interim trade deal because, reportedly, India is unwilling to open its agricultural and dairy markets. This stance is understandable, as it aims to protect India's politically-sensitive farming sector. The US announcement of a 25% tariff is a blatant attempt to pressure India into agreeing to a trade deal. As per the executive order, this additional tariff will remain until the two sides agree to a trade deal. The US is trying to negotiate while holding a gun to India's head. These tariffs would hit Indian exports to the US, especially of labour-intensive sectors such as textiles. Additionally, the US imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian goods is a blatant violation of international law. It not only breaches the most favoured nation principle laid down in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) but also violates the US's bound tariff commitments — a promise not to impose tariffs that exceed the rates mutually agreed upon — under Article II of GATT. The current situation extends beyond merely imposing high tariff rates. Trump's assertion that India would incur a penalty for purchasing oil and weapons from Russia constitutes a frontal assault on India's sovereignty. It's unclear whether this penalty refers to additional tariffs or something different. Regardless, the threat of such a penalty violates several fundamental canons of international law. Let us examine this under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which both India and the US are founding members. Under the WTO law, a member country is not allowed to adopt unilateral trade measures against another member country unless supported by the WTO agreement. A key provision in this regard is that a WTO member country can limit or even forbid trade with another member country on grounds of national security. This principle is codified in Article XXI of GATT, which, inter alia, allows a country to take any actions it deems necessary for protecting its essential security interests during times of war or other emergencies in international relations. This includes measures such as imposing a trade embargo. The WTO panels have interpreted this principle narrowly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents an emergency in international relations. This situation could potentially empower the US to sever its trade ties with Russia. However, the US cannot legally justify restricting trade with countries that engage in commerce with Russia. Imposing additional tariffs on India would be too disconnected from the security threats posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine to the US, making such an action implausible. The American penalty threat to India also violates the general international law of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the International Court of Justice in the US v Nicaragua case. From whom to buy oil and weapons is part of India's reserved domain, that is, part of India's sovereign economic and foreign policy. While the US may disapprove of India's policy choices and may seek to influence them through legal measures, it cannot impose unlawful actions — such as tariffs that are WTO-inconsistent — to coerce India into signing a trade deal or to punish it for lawfully trading with Russia. This, as international lawyer Marko Milanovic describes it, can be characterised as coercion-as-extortion, which violates customary international law. However, viewing the latest actions of Trump merely from the vantage point of international trade would mean missing the woods for the trees. The US, under Trump, appears determined to wage a war with international law and the liberal international order it assiduously built after World War II. The US has traditionally maintained a policy of exceptionalism regarding international law, viewing itself as 'distinct' and thus an 'exception' to the rules that apply to other countries. However, the Trump administration has escalated this attitude to a whole new level. American professor Mark Pollack has rightly described Trump as a 'hostile change agent' in international law who adopts unilateral measures that undermine the international rule of law and topple the law-based order. This is different from many past American presidents who might be characterised as 'traditional change agents' trying to persuade others to accept change based on reinterpretation of existing norms or even adoption of new ones. The real worry is that the current hostility to international law might get so entrenched that it would be difficult to reverse it even after Trump leaves office. Keeping this larger picture in mind, India should stand up against American bullying. While the US is undoubtedly a significant partner for India, New Delhi should send a clear message that it cannot be taken for granted. One effective way to convey this message would be to legally challenge the US's illegal tariffs at the WTO's dispute settlement body. A just and fair rule-based international order is the best antidote to Trumpian unilateralism. India, an essential member of the comity of nations, should take a lead in industriously defending the international rule of law. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Revised reservation policy implemented in 8 tribal-dominated districts of Maharashtra
The Maharashtra government has finalised a revised reservation policy and roster for Group C and Group D posts at the district level in eight tribal-dominated districts. A government resolution in this regard has been issued by the Social Justice Department. To suggest measures for prescribing revised reservations for socially and educationally backward classes in the tribal-dominated districts of Nashik, Dhule, Nandurbar, Palghar, Yavatmal, Raigad, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli, a cabinet sub-committee was formed under the chairmanship of Revenue Minister Bawankule. The sub-committee included Food and Civil Supplies Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, Agriculture Minister Manikrao Kokate, School Education Minister Dadaji Bhuse, Other Backward Classes Welfare Minister Atul Save, and Tribal Development Minister Dr Ashok Uike, among others. The government has taken this decision based on the recommendations of the sub-committee. The new reservation roster will be implemented in these eight tribal-dominated districts. The revised reservation for direct recruitment to Group-C and Group-D posts has been finalised after considering the existing reservation percentages and population of Other Backward Classes and Denotified Tribes/Nomadic Tribes in these districts, and the corresponding roster has been prescribed. Under the Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category has been granted a 10% reservation for direct recruitment in government services and admissions to educational institutions. Reservation for Nashik, Dhule, Nandurbar, and Palghar districts Scheduled Castes (SC) – 10% Scheduled Tribes (ST) – 22% Denotified Tribes (A) – 3% Nomadic Tribes (B) – 2.5% Nomadic Tribes (C) – 3.5% Nomadic Tribes (D) – 2% Special Backward Class – 2% Other Backward Classes (OBC) – 15% SEBC – 8% EWS – 8% Open Category – 24%. Reservation for Yavatmal dist SC – 12% ST – 14% Denotified Tribes (A) – 3% Nomadic Tribes (B)- 2.5% Nomadic Tribes (C) – 3.5% Nomadic Tribes (D) – 2% Special Backward Class – 2% OBC – 17% SEBC – 8% EWS – 8% Open Category – 28%. Reservation for Chandrapur SC – 13% ST – 15% Denotified Tribes (A) – 3% Nomadic Tribes (B) – 2.5% Nomadic Tribes (C) – 3.5% Nomadic Tribes (D) – 2% Special Backward Class – 2% OBC – 19% SEBC – 8% EWS – 8% Open Category – 24%. Reservation for Gadchiroli SC – 12% ST – 24% Denotified Tribes (A) – 2% Nomadic Tribes (B) – 2% Nomadic Tribes (C) – 2% Nomadic Tribes (D) – 2% Special Backward Category – 2% OBC – 17% SEBC – 8% EWS – 8% Open Category – 21%. Reservation for Raigad SC – 12% ST – 9% Denotified Tribes (A) – 3% Nomadic Tribes (B) – 2.5% Nomadic Tribes (C) – 3.5% Nomadic Tribes (D) – 2% Special Backward Category – 2% OBC – 19% SEBC – 10% EWS – 9% Open Category – 28%
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi CM says, no jhuggis will be removed, will ensure housing for all
Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Friday said no jhuggis will be demolished in the city before its occupants are given permanent houses. Rekha Gupta laid out an expansive vision for transforming the face of Delhi during a seminar on sustainable development in the NCT titled "Growth Bhi, Green Bhi".(Sonu Mehta/Hindustan Times) If needed, the CM said, her government will amend policies to ensure dignity and housing for all. Rekha Gupta laid out an expansive vision for transforming the face of Delhi during a seminar on sustainable development in the NCT titled "Growth Bhi, Green Bhi". The city must now accelerate development with better schools, hospitals, roads, water and sewer lines, solar and rainwater harvesting systems, and a rejuvenated Yamuna, she said. Referring to the Prime Minister's call to fast-track Delhi's progress, Gupta said, "PM ne bola hai – Delhi aage badhegi toh desh aage badhega (PM has said, if Delhi progresses, the whole nation will progress).' The chief minister added that all her ministers are working 16 to 18 hours a day to help Delhi catch up with the pace of other states and cities that have outpaced the national capital over the years. "People of Delhi lost a lot in those 27 years. Now, we have to give Delhi a fresh start from zero," she said, referring to decades of developmental neglect. During the event, CM Gupta assured that not a single slum will be demolished until its occupants are provided with permanent housing. She said, "Har ek ko makaan denge, aur ek bhi jhuggi tootne nahi denge (We will not let any jhuggis get demolished and everyone will get a permanent home).' Gupta also criticised outdated labour regulations, particularly the 1954 rule that restricted women from working night shifts. "It should be a woman's choice whether to work at night or not. The government cannot impose decisions on them," she said, announcing that the Delhi government has removed that restriction to ensure greater opportunities for women, while also promising safe working environments. 'Delhi is the capital of India and it deserves faster development, better infrastructure, technology, and better lives for its residents. But now, we have a chance to rebuild and make it right," Gupta said.
