SC reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile rule for medical admissions
The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the Telangana domicile rule for medical college admissions, which prioritizes students who studied in the state for the four years leading up to Class 12. The Telangana High Court previously struck down the rule, arguing it unfairly denies opportunities to permanent residents who studied elsewhere.
Agencies Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on pleas including one of the Telangana government against an order that struck down its domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges in the state. The state government through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, entitled only those students, who have studied for last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota. The Telangana High Court held that the state's permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical colleges only because they lived outside the state for sometime. On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments from both sides, including the Telangana government's counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi. Defending the state's four-year domicile criterion, Singhvi said once a domicile rule is established, "a threshold becomes inevitable".
He said Telangana relied on a government order backed by a presidential order and, moreover, only the state government, not courts, could define "permanent residence". The CJI referred to the practical consequences of the rule, illustrating if "a Telangana judge is transferred to Bihar and his son studies in classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Bihar then the boy is disentitled from getting admissions in his home state". "Take a student born and raised in Telangana but moves away for just classes 10 and 11 and say, to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer from Telangana posted in Delhi, whose child studies outside the state for two years. Should such children be disqualified?" the CJI asked. Justice Chandran weighed in, "If a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study doesn't. Isn't that an anomaly?" Singhvi said the high court created the term "permanent resident," which only the state has the authority to define. The top court on September 20 last year stayed the high court order directing permanent residents or those domiciled in the state couldn't be denied the benefit of admission in the medical colleges only because they remained outside Telangana for sometime for their studies or residence. The state government, however, agreed to grant a one-time exception to 135 students, who had moved the high court, in admissions in the medical and dental colleges in 2024. The state's appeal argued that the high court erroneously held Rule 3(a) of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents (candidates) were eligible to admission in the medical colleges in Telangana. The rule mandated four consecutive years of study in the state for students seeking admission in Telangana medical colleges before qualifying the exam. The state's plea argued such an order by the high court overlooked the fact that Telangana possesses the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. The high court's judgement, it said, mandates the state to prepare new rules for admission, which was a time-intensive process.
"After framing the rules students have to apply and collect the requisite certificates from authorities concerned. Each certificate submitted by the student needs to be verified by the Health University. Whereas the present rule prescribes that the students can produce their educational certificate without approaching any office or authority. If the judgement of the high court is implemented, it will result in a huge delay in the allotment of seats to MBBS and BDS students," the plea added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can Abu Salem walk free soon? Here's what the Maharashtra government and the courts have said
Gangster Abu Salem, who was extradited to India from Portugal in 2005, has been trying to make the case for premature release from prison. But the state government told the Bombay High Court this week that he has to serve out a term of 25 years as per the conditions of his extradition from Portugal – which means that he cannot be released before 2030. India had assured Portugal that Salem would not be given the death penalty or jail term exceeding 25 years if he was found guilty in cases that were pending against him. In 2015 and 2017, Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of builder Pradeep Jain and the 1993 Bombay blasts, respectively. On what basis is Salem seeking release? Abu Salem, or Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, was named as an absconding accused in the first chargesheet filed by Mumbai Police in the Bombay blasts case on November 4, 1993. The police claimed that Salem had been given the task of transporting and concealing weapons, and was linked to the conspiracy to execute the blasts. On March 12 that year, a dozen bombs went off across Mumbai in a terrorist attack coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim and his gang, killing 257 people. Salem remained a wanted accused in the blasts case as well as the 1995 murder of Jain, a Mumbai-based builder. He was said to have fled the country, and remained absconding as the trial against the other accused began and ended. It was only in 2002 that investigators had a breakthrough, and Salem was detained in Lisbon, the capital of Portugal. He was said to have undergone plastic surgery to change his appearance, but his identity was established on the basis of his fingerprints that were available in police records. A year later, the Portuguese government consented to India's request for Salem's extradition on the basis of documents and evidence that were made available on his alleged role in crimes in India, including the 1993 terrorist attack. Salem appealed against the government's order in courts in Portugal, and L K Advani, then deputy Prime Minister, gave an assurance that he would not be given the death penalty or a prison term of more than 25 years. On November 11, 2005, Salem was extradited to India. He was put on trial for the murder of the builder, and the 1993 blasts case. He was found guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), and was sentenced to life imprisonment. For the past few years, Salem, who is lodged in a jail in Maharashtra, has been knocking on the doors of various authorities, including the trial court, Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court, asking for the date on which he would be released. He has been claiming that he is entitled to benefits that a prisoner gets, including remission. Remission is a reduction in the jail term based on grounds including the nature of the offence and good conduct, and as part of special schemes, etc. Salem has claimed that based on the time he has spent in jail, he is entitled to 3 years and 16 days of remission. Also, given that he had been detained in Portugal from September 2002 onward, he has spent more than 25 years in jail, and should have been released on March 31, 2025. Based on these calculations, Salem has written to Portuguese authorities on various occasions, claiming that the conditions of his extradition have been violated. He has also written to the Maharashtra Prison Department, the state government, and the courts. Back in 2017, Salem had sought remission under a special scheme introduced by the state to mark the 125th birth anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. He had said that his case was 'entirely different' from that of other convicts, as the agreement between Portugal and India guaranteed 'pardon, reprieve, respite or remission'. And what have the courts ruled in this matter? * Salem had approached the Supreme Court in 2018 with his plea on early release. In 2022, the court said that considering the gravity of his offences, no special privileges could be extended to him. The court also said that his contention that the period of his detention should be considered to have started in 2002 when he was first detained could not be accepted, as he was convicted of entering Portugal on a fake passport and had been punished in that country. The court said that in keeping with the assurance given to Portugal, once Salem completed 25 years in jail, which would be in 2030, the Union of India would consider the matter. * Last year, Salem approached the trial court in Mumbai, asking for the tentative date of his release, and a calculation of his remission as per prison rules. The court rejected his plea in December 2024 after the CBI submitted that as per the order of the Supreme Court, he could be released only in 2030. * Salem then approached the Bombay High Court, where the Prison Department and Home Department of the state submitted in May that he had actually been in prison for 19 years. The Home Department also submitted that since Salem is a convict in two cases, under the anti-terror law, TADA, his life imprisonment would not be calculated as a 14-year prison term. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs too filed an affidavit in May, saying that as a TADA convict, Salem's life imprisonment was for 60 years – however, to honour the assurance given to Portugal, the question of his release would arise on November 10, 2030, after he had served 25 years. The Union of India would abide by the assurance at the appropriate time, subject to remedies which may be available, the affidavit said. In July, the High Court admitted Salem's plea seeking remission and early release, but said that he was yet to complete the 25-year term, and that his plea would be heard in due course. This week, the state informed the court in an affidavit that Salem does not have a 'palatable history', citing the criminal offences he had been convicted of. It said that given his criminal record, Salem was a 'Category 8' prisoner who would have to spend 60 years in jail before being considered for release. However, as per the agreement with the Portuguese, Salem would not be put in jail for more than 25 years, the state said. But these 25 years would be 'actual imprisonment', and would not include remission. Therefore, he cannot be released before 2030.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects Justice Varma's plea challenging cash burn inquiry panel
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Justice Yashwant Varma's petition challenging the validity of an in-house inquiry committee that had found him guilty of misconduct after the recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi in March this year. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih held that the in-house committee had scrupulously followed the process, except for uploading photographs and video. The Bench also clarified that a writ petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge under the in-house mechanism was not maintainable. It stated that the in-house procedure enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework. "We have held that the CJI and the in-house committee had scrupulously followed the process, except uploading photos and video, and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then. We have held that the CJI sending the letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional. We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future. With this, we have dismissed the writ petition," the Court said. In the previous hearing, the Court had asked why Justice Varma — a former Delhi High Court judge — was questioning the panel and its formation after participating in its proceedings throughout. Justice Varma, now serving at his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, was transferred from Delhi after the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence. The Court has, however, left open the option for Justice Varma to approach it for appropriate remedies if required. Justice Varma had also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleged that the panel's findings were based on a 'preconceived narrative' and that the adverse conclusions were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing. 'Whether to proceed or not to proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,' the Bench observed. It also clarified that the post of the Chief Justice of India is not merely ceremonial. 'He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), the CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister. If on the basis of the material it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious as to warrant action, he would be affirming earlier decisions of this Court which state that the CJI has the authority to do so,' Justice Datta said. The 'in-house procedure' was the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, Justice Datta said. However, the Bench agreed with Varma's contention that the videos showing the burning of cash should not have been leaked during the proceedings. The in-house inquiry committee examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11:35 PM on March 14, 2025, at Justice Varma's official residence, then serving at the Delhi High Court. He now serves as a judge at the Allahabad High Court. Based on the panel's findings, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
ED can't act like 'crook', must work within four corners of law: SC
New Delhi, The Enforcement Directorate cannot act like a "crook" and has to confine itself within the four corners of the law, the Supreme Court on Thursday said as it flagged low conviction rates in cases investigated by the central agency. ED can't act like 'crook', must work within four corners of law: SC "We are also concerned for the image of the Enforcement Directorate," a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, N Kotiswar Singh said. The top court is hearing pleas seeking review of the 2022 verdict that upheld powers of arrest of the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act . Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Centre and the ED, questioned the maintainability of the review petitions and attributed the low conviction rate to the delaying tactics of "influential accused". "Influential crooks have a lot of wherewithal. They employ a battery of lawyers to file applications after applications at different stages to protract the proceedings and the investigating officer of the case instead of devoting time to investigation keeps on running to court for one application or other," Raju said. Justice Bhuyan referred to one of his judgements and said of the 5,000 cases registered by the ED in past five years there were less than 10 per cent convictions and this factual statement was substantiated by the minister in Parliament. "You can't act like a crook, you have to act within the four corners of the law. I observed in one of my judgments that ED has registered around 5,000 ECIRs in the past five years but the conviction rate is less than 10 why we have been insisting that you improve your investigation as it deals with the liberty of the individual," Justice Bhuyan said. The judge continued, "We are also concerned about ED's image. At the end of 5-6 years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this?" Justice Kant said the answer to all the problems was having dedicated courts akin to TADA and POTA courts and the dedicated PMLA courts could conduct day-to-day proceedings, resulting in expeditious disposal of cases. "Yes, influential accused will still file numerous applications but these accused and their lawyers will know that since it is day-to-day trial and their application will be decided the very next day. Time has come to hit them hard. We can't have sympathy for them. I know a magistrate who has to decide 49 applications in a day and pass orders for 10-20 pages in each of them. This cannot go on," he said. Raju further noted ED getting "handicapped" after "influential accused" flee to different countries like Cayman Islands aside from dealing in crypto-currencies and other sophisticated methods and impede investigation. On the point of crypto-currencies, Justice Kant said the government ought to seriously think of regulating it for people were operating different apps and crypto stock exchanges. He said top court's Justice Joymalya Bagchi recently said in a case that a day was not far when bribe takers would take bribes in crypto-currency, which will be very difficult for the investigating agencies to investigate. Raju questioned the authenticity of the review petitions, calling them "nothing but appeals" against the 2022 verdict disguised as review. "For the review, you have to make out a case for error apparent on the face of record in the 2022 verdict but they have not stated anywhere what is error apparent. If these reviews are admitted it would amount to rewriting the 2022 judgement," he said. Raju contended that the constitutional validity of the PMLA was in their favour as the Constitution bench in 2019 in the Roger Mathew case upheld the validity of the statute. "They took a chance and failed in that endeavour. Now they're saying, no, that was wrong and redo it. Review can't be an appeal in disguise. They must first demonstrate that there is an error apparent on the face of the record when it comes to these two issues. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error that should be fished out. Review cannot be for asking. They have to make out an exceptionally strong case for review," Raju said. Justice Kant also enquired about the methodology adopted by ED during arrests and whether grounds of arrest and reasons for arrests were given to the accused. Raju submitted there was no obligation on the ED under the statute to supply a copy of the ECIR to the accused but courts in subsequent ruling stressed on sharing grounds and reasons of arrest with accused persons. The hearing would continue next week. In July 2022, the apex court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld the ED's powers to arrest, attach properties involved in money laundering and carry out search and seizure under the PMLA. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
