Latest news with #JBPardiwala
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Embed Code : SC rejects Vodafone, Airtel, Tata pleas for AGR dues waiver on interest
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed petitions by Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea, and Tata Teleservices seeking waivers on interest, penalties, and interest on penalties related to adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan described the petitions as "misconceived" and criticised the companies for approaching the court. Red Fort and Jama Masjid received bomb threat call. According to Delhi Police, nothing suspicious was found during the check and the call was declared as hoax: Delhi Police — ANI (@ANI) April 10, 2025 'We are really shocked by these petitions which have come before us. It is not expected of a multinational company. We will dismiss it,' the Bench told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Vodafone. The court also declined to intervene in the Centre's decision to support the telecom companies. The ruling came a day after Vodafone Idea filed a plea seeking relief from AGR liabilities exceeding ₹45,000 crore, citing financial distress. Networks as a discontinuing operation, valued at Rs 7.9 crore. The Mumbai-headquartered company's revenue from operations rose marginally by 0.7 per cent year-on-year (YoY) to Rs 2,184.1 crore in Q4FY25. The modest growth was largely due to a sharp 24.56 per cent decline in advertising revenue, which fell to Rs 837.5 crore. 'Domestic advertising revenue declined by 27 per cent YoY for the quarter due to a slowdown in the macro advertising environment, postponement of the Zee Cine Awards, a busy sports calendar and a higher base in Q4FY24,' the company stated in its investor presentation. In contrast, subscription revenue rose by around 4 per cent YoY to Rs 986.5 crore during the quarter, driven by both linear TV subscriptions and growth on ZEE5, the company's digital streaming platform. ZEEL's other sales and services revenue—which includes the distribution business—tripled to Rs 360.1 crore in Q4FY25. The rise was attributed to a higher number of film releases and increased syndication revenue. In the quarter, 16 shows and movies were released, including four ZEE5 originals. However, profit before interest, depreciation and tax (PBIDT) remained flat, dipping marginally by 0.1 per cent to Rs 98.2 crore for the quarter. 'There is not much meat left in us to cut,' a company executive said during the earnings call, referencing ZEEL's cost-cutting measures, particularly in its digital business, ZEE5. The executive added that future growth would now rely on increasing revenue as the scope for further cost reductions has been exhausted. Connect with us on WhatsApp More From This Section North Korea fired missiles off west coast, says South Korea amid US drills Govt nod to over ₹7,500 crore ropeway projects for Kedarnath, weather today Narendra Modi PM Modi to launch Mission Weather Forecast to make India more weather-ready war Macron unveils $112.5 bn AI investment to boost France's tech ambitions US commerce dept expands list of Chinese firms subject to export controls Topics : KL Rahul Rahul Gandhi Ratan Tata1 Iran Israel conflict By Shruti Srivastava and Sudhi Ranjan Sen The interim deal will likely cover areas including market access for industrial goods, some farm products and addressing some non-tariff barriers, such as quality control requirements, the people said, asking not to be identified because the discussions are private. The talks are still ongoing and there's no clarity if the Trump administration has agreed to a three-stage process for a trade deal. India's Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal is currently in Washington on a four-day trip that ends Tuesday, where he's expected to meet US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to advance the negotiations.
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Legal process must prevail over face-off
On May 14, 2025, the President of India, exercising her powers under Article 143 of the Constitution, sought the Supreme Court's opinion on the imposition of timelines for the President and the Governors to act under Articles 200 and 201. The President referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion. This was apparently necessary because of the judgement of the Supreme Court's Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on April 8, 2025. Before dealing with the questions, it is essential to set out the context in which they were raised. This case refers to the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which passed 12 Bills and forwarded them to the Governor between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023, for his assent under Article 200. These Bills lay dormant till October 2023. The Governor's inaction led to filing a petition requiring the Governor to act. Under Article 200, if a Bill passed by the Legislature is presented to the Governor, he may either assent to the Bill or withhold assent therefrom. The Governor is required to give his assent as soon as possible. This reflects that he must do so expeditiously despite no fixed timeline. The Governor can also return a bill to the Legislature for reconsideration. If the Legislature, upon reconsideration, passes the Bill with or without amendments, the Governor cannot withhold assent therefrom. The Governor may also reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, who, under Article 201, may either give or withhold his assent. Though no timeline has been prescribed, it must be implied that the President will do so expeditiously.
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Bridging the digital gap: Supreme Court's vision for an accessible India
Is the all-encompassing onslaught of technology creating a huge social divide that ignores large sections of the population, especially persons with disabilities (PwDs), acid attack survivors, visually impaired and rural poor? It seems so as the Supreme Court in a far-reaching order on April 30 said that the right to digital access is a fundamental right and that the right to life under Article 21 should be reinterpreted from a technological viewpoint. In an age where digitisation drives governance, service delivery, and economic transactions, the promise of digital India can only be fulfilled if access is inclusive. While digital tools have streamlined identification, verification, and access to essential services, they have simultaneously left out large sections of the population—especially persons with disabilities (PwDs), including acid attack survivors and the visually impaired—who face systemic barriers in using these platforms. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan were hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the inaccessibility of digital KYC and e-KYC processes and seeking redress under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners had sought alternative KYC mechanisms that uphold their right to dignity and inclusion. Citing its 2024 verdict in Rajive Raturi vs Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated that lack of digital accessibility violates Article 21, and ruled that accessibility is a constitutional imperative. The court concluded that bridging the digital divide is a Constitutional imperative, not a policy choice. Seeking a ray of hope The petitioners' grievances centred on the fact that the current KYC verification processes — including live photo capture, facial recognition, and blinking detection — are not designed keeping in mind the disabled. They argued that these methods are exclusionary and violate their right to equal access. Specific directions sought included issuing alternative methods for completing digital KYC, such as using voice recognition or facial feature movements in place of eye-blinking; amending the Reserve Bank of India's KYC Master Directions to reflect inclusive practices for acid attack survivors and the visually impaired; allowing physical KYC or alternative verification for those unable to fulfill visual prompts; sensitising public and private establishments to accommodate persons with disabilities and ensuring accessibility audits and user testing with visually impaired individuals before launching digital platforms. The exclusion of persons with disabilities and marginalised groups has had real-world consequences: petitioners were unable to open bank accounts or procure SIM cards because they couldn't blink to complete facial verification protocols. For those with 100% blindness, such hurdles extend to nearly every digital touchpoint — banking, government schemes, telecom services—thereby obstructing their participation in everyday life. Systemic barriers in current KYC methods The RBI's 2016 Master Direction on KYC, now adopted across banking, finance, telecom, and even governmental schemes, has made digital verification processes indispensable. However, the following methods mandated or commonly used in e-KYC—clicking selfies, signing on screens, OTP verification, reading on-screen prompts, and document scanning — pose substantial hurdles to persons with visual or motor impairments. Face recognition tools lack screen reader compatibility or voice instructions. Signature capturing often requires precise motor control. CAPTCHAs and visual cues, such as blinking or aligning one's face, are impossible for many. The result: people with disabilities often depend on a third person to complete processes, which undermines their autonomy and violates their rights to dignity and privacy. The petitioners argued that under Section 12 of the RPwD Act, public and private players are obligated to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to ensure full participation of disabled persons in all spheres of life. Precedents such as Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, and Disabled Rights Group v. UoI have affirmed the state's duty to facilitate full integration and economic empowerment of PwDs. Digital accessibility in detail The issue of digital accessibility has come to the forefront through several cases, including those of acid attack victims and individuals with visual impairments. These individuals face significant barriers in completing digital KYC processes, which are mandatory for accessing essential services like banking, telecommunications, and government schemes. The digital KYC process, as it stands, excludes persons with disabilities, violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The process requires tasks like clicking selfies, face recognition, and signing documents, which are not accessible to individuals with visual impairments or facial disfigurements. For instance, acid attack victims with permanent eye disfigurement struggle to complete the KYC process due to the requirement of blinking or capturing a live photograph. Similarly, individuals with visual impairments face difficulties in accessing digital platforms, navigating through complex interfaces, and completing tasks independently. Legal and Constitutional context As per the Supreme Court's observations, KYC processes are vital for verifying identities, preventing fraud, and fulfilling obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, if such procedures are inherently exclusionary, they undermine the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. The court noted that current digital ecosystems — both public and private — often ignore the tenets of universal design and accessibility. Government websites are frequently incompatible with assistive technologies, and many digital services fail to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These oversights violate the RPwD Act, 2016, and the principles enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory. Top court shows the way ahead Compliance with accessibility standards: All public and private entities must follow prescribed accessibility norms. Each department must appoint a nodal officer to ensure digital accessibility. Regular accessibility audits: These must be conducted by certified professionals, with the inclusion of persons with visual disabilities during testing phases. Alternative verification methods: The RBI must revise its KYC Master Directions to allow non-visual cues—like voice, facial movements, or other biometric alternatives—to confirm identity and liveness. Customer Due Diligence guidance: The RBI must issue further clarifications mandating regulated entities to offer inclusive processes for verifying customer identities. Inclusive digital transformation The verdict has far-reaching implications beyond just banking or telecom sectors. As the state and private sectors increasingly rely on digital mechanisms for delivering services, they must internalise inclusivity as a design principle rather than an afterthought. Digital exclusion is not merely a matter of inconvenience—it is a denial of basic human rights. Going forward, accessibility must not be siloed as a 'disability issue' but embraced as a mainstream concern. Only then can the true vision of Digital India—where no one is left behind—be realised.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
NEET PG 2025: Application final correction window opens at natboard.edu.in
NEET PG 2025: The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has opened the edit window for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Post Graduate (NEET PG) 2025 application forms. Registered candidates can now access the edit facility by logging in with their user ID and password through the official website, As per the official notification, applicants are permitted to modify specific details in their application forms, including uploaded images, signature photographs, and thumb impressions. The window for making these corrections will remain open until May 26, 2025. However, candidates must note that certain particulars, such as name, nationality, mobile number, email address, and test city, cannot be changed at this stage. Moving forward, NBEMS will release the city intimation slip for NEET PG 2025 on June 2, while the admit card download link will be activated on June 11. The results for NEET PG 2025 are scheduled to be declared on July 15, and the cut-off date for internship completion to meet exam eligibility is July 31, 2025. Candidates are advised to carefully review their application forms within the given time frame and ensure all permissible details are accurate. For more updates and detailed information, aspirants should regularly visit the official NBEMS website. Meanwhile, expressing concern over widespread seat blocking in postgraduate medical admissions, the Supreme Court has mandated pre-counselling fee disclosure by all private and deemed universities for NEET-PG. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the malpractice of seat blocking distorted the actual availability of seats, fostered inequity among aspirants, and often reduced the process to the one governed more by chance than merit. 'Seat blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects deeper systemic flaws rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak policy enforcement. Although regulatory bodies have introduced disincentives and technical controls, the core challenges of synchronisation, real-time visibility, and uniform enforcement remain largely unaddressed,' the bench's April 29 order said. The verdict added, 'Achieving a truly fair and efficient system will require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination, technological modernisation, and robust regulatory accountability at both state and Central levels.' The top court, as a result, directed implementation of a nationally synchronised counselling calendar to align All India Quota and state rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems.
Scroll.in
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
‘Why are they dying only in Kota?': Supreme Court criticises Rajasthan over rise in student suicides
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the Rajasthan government over the rising number of cases of students dying by suicide in Kota, calling the situation serious, PTI reported. At least 14 cases have been reported so far this year, the state's counsel told the court. The court questioned why the deaths had taken place. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the Supreme Court-appointed task force would need time to submit a full report. 'What are you doing as a state?' Pardiwala asked. 'Why are these children dying by suicide and only in Kota? Have you not given it a thought as a state?' The counsel for Rajasthan said that a special investigation team had been set up to investigate the cases. Kota is home to scores of coaching classes for engineering, medical and civil services exams that attract lakhs of students every year. The bench also mentioned the case of a National Entrance Eligibility Test aspirant found dead at home in Kota, and accused the state of contempt for failing to file a first information report, PTI reported. The court said that despite the student residing with her parents since November 2024, instead of the institute's accommodation, the police were obligated to file the case. 'It was the duty of the police concerned to register the FIR and carry out the investigation,' the court was quoted as saying by the news agency. 'The officer in-charge of the concerned territorial police station has failed in his duty. He has not complied with the directions issued by this court.' The Supreme Court was hearing a case about the death of a 22-year-old student at the Indian Institute of Technology in West Bengal's Kharagpur on May 4. Besides criticising the government about the rising cases of suicide in Rajasthan, the court also criticised the police in West Bengal for a four-day delay in filing a first information report in the IIT case. The court was informed that IIT had alerted the police after discovering the alleged death by suicide, but it found the explanations from the institute's counsel and the police unconvincing. The bench cautioned the authorities that it could have taken strict action, including initiating contempt proceedings against the officer in charge of the matter, but chose not to, given that a case had been lodged and a probe was underway. On May 6, the Supreme Court bench had directed the police in Rajasthan and West Bengal to report whether FIRs had been filed in both cases, the Hindustan Times reported.
