Latest news with #MahabirSinghSindhu
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Chandigarh PG medical seats to stay with all-India pool, says High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Chandigarh administration's decision to reallocate vacant Union Territory (UT) quota seats in postgraduate (PG) medical courses to the All India Quota (AIQ), rejecting a challenge from candidates who argued the move violated a Supreme Court judgment. A division bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu and Justice H.S. Grewal dismissed the petition filed by Avijit Chander and others, who had opposed a June 3 notification that diverted unfilled UT Pool seats at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Chandigarh, to the AIQ pool. The petitioners had argued these seats should have gone to the Institutional Preference (IP) category under the state quota for local candidates. Their counsel, senior advocate Gurminder Singh, said, 'While taking a complete U-turn… without any authority of law and also in complete violation of Shrey Goel's judgment, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned public notice… wherein vacant U.T. Pool seats have been diverted to A.I.Q. against [the] maximum limit of 50%.' But the court found no merit in the claim, ruling that the matter of residence-based reservation in PG medical courses had already been settled by the Supreme Court. 'This Court is not persuaded with the arguments raised by learned senior counsel… the legal issue has already been adjudicated,' said Justice Sindhu. The case has its roots in the Supreme Court's January 29 verdict in Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Others, which struck down the practice of reserving PG medical seats on the basis of residence in UT Chandigarh. The apex court had ruled that such a reservation was 'not permissible', but allowed students already admitted or graduated to remain unaffected. Following this, the Chandigarh administration initially said in April that vacant UT Pool seats would be moved to the IP category. However, in a fresh notice on June 3, it reassigned them to the AIQ instead, sparking the present legal challenge. The petitioners argued that the administration's about-turn violated both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court ruling and exceeded the 50% limit allowed for AIQ seats. But the high court noted that the seat matrix – 75 for AIQ and 76 for State Quota (plus four EWS) – remained within permissible limits, and that the reallocation aligned with the Supreme Court's broader emphasis on merit-based admissions. 'Consequently, there is no option, except to dismiss the petition,' the bench concluded in its order, delivered on June 10.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: Won't meddle in counselling process at GMCH, says HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday refused to interfere in the counselling process for post-graduate (PG) courses admissions at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector-32. The vacation bench of justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu and justice HS Grewal dismissed the petition from five students of an institute, orally observing that 'the court was not inclined to interfere in the process.' Detailed order of the proceedings is awaited. The petition was from five students, Avijit Chander, Tanvi, Reeshab Bhatia, Dhriti Garg and Aditya Jain who had said that they were aggrieved with GMCH-32 notification of June 3 on filling up seats within state quota, which is 50% of the total seats. 'In a completely illegal, arbitrary and mala fide manner, the state quota seats which have fallen vacant owing to the quashing of the reservation of seats for UT pool category, have been put in all-India quota seats without there being any power to do so,' they had argued. Post graduate medical courses seats are divided into state and all-India quota. In Chandigarh, before the Supreme Court judgement of January 29, 2025, the state quota pool was further divided into institutional preference(IP) and residence/domicile based. However, with Supreme Court judgement removing domicile quota, UT administration on April 9, 2025, had issued a notice to convert the UT Chandigarh pool seats of state quota into IP for third counselling of PG courses admissions. Some students approached the high court against UT administration notice for various reasons. The high court dismissed the pleas in its order on May 27, 2025 and directed UT administration to carry out admissions to the courses in accordance with Supreme Court judgement of January 29. It was in this backdrop that on June 3, GMCH-32 notified the third counselling of post graduate medical courses for session 2024-25 for the remaining state quota seats on the basis of IP and all-India merit of NEET-PG examination. As per the notice, this time UT decided to fill the seats of state quota on all India merit of NEET-PG-2024 exam. The students had challenged this notice, arguing that due to this all India quota seats have gone beyond 50% limit, which they claimed is 'illegal'. For third counselling, around 35 state quota seats were left.
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'In interest of institution', high court Chief Justice withdraws case from judge after getting complaints
CHANDIGARH: The Chief Justice (CJ) of Punjab and Haryana high court has withdrawn a case from its judge "in the interest of the institution" and to "protect the reputation" of the judge after receiving "oral and written" complaints, according to an order from the CJ. The court also asserted that the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular bench and allocate the same to any other judge is "untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny". The order came after eminent lawyer Mukul Rohtagi, the counsel for the petitioner Roop Bansal, who had sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Panchkula on April 17, had objected to the withdrawal of the case. The petition was heard by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu who reserved the judgement on May 2. However, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the case from Justice Sindhu after receiving some "oral and written" complaints and constituted another bench comprising himself and listed the matter on May 12, to "draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like One of the Most Successful Investors of All Time, Warren Buffett, Recommends: 5 Books for Turning... Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Click Here Undo Rohtagi objected to withdrawal of the case, arguing that the matter which is "heard and reserved" by a bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other single bench including that of Chief Justice. "The reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, (oral and written), which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice on May 12 to give quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned Judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible," said the order which was passed on Friday.
The Hindu
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Haryana High Court Chief Justice withdraws case from judge after getting 'oral, written' complaints
The Chief Justice (CJ) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has withdrawn a case from its judge 'in the interest of the institution' and to 'protect the reputation' of the judge after receiving 'oral and written' complaints, according to an order from the CJ. The court also asserted that the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular bench and allocate the same to any other judge is 'untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny'. The order came after eminent lawyer Mukul Rohtagi, the counsel for the petitioner Roop Bansal, who had sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Panchkula on April 17, had objected to the withdrawal of the case. The petition was heard by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu who reserved the judgement on May 2. However, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the case from Justice Sindhu after receiving some 'oral and written' complaints and constituted another bench comprising himself and listed the matter on May 12, to 'draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment'. Mr. Rohtagi objected to the withdrawal of the case, arguing that the matter, which is 'heard and reserved' by a bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other single bench, including that of the Chief Justice. 'The reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, (oral as well as written), which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice on May 12 at 03.30 p.m. to give quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned Judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible,' said the order which was passed on Friday (May 23, 2025). The Chief Justice received certain complaints, and these complaints impelled the Chief Justice to take emergent steps in the interest of the institution and also to preserve and protect the reputation and dignity of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, stated the order of the Chief Justice. Since the matter had been heard and reserved by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu on May 2 and the knowledge of the complaints was received by the Chief Justice as late as May 8-9, there was very little reaction time available, it said. The Chief Justice, in the fitness of things, took a drastic step on May 10 by passing an administrative order withdrawing the instant case from Justice Sindhu and listing it before the single bench comprising the Chief Justice alone to hear the matter on May 12, according to the order. On objection raised by the petitioner's counsel on withdrawal of the case, the order stated, 'It is not disputed that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, but once Chief Justice makes assignment of a case to a particular Bench by way of roster or by administrative order, then that particular case falls within the exclusive domain of the assigned Bench till its decision except where the Roster is changed or the Chief Justice allots that particular case to some other Bench.' From a close scrutiny of the ratio of various judgments relied upon and having gone through the rules and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 'this court finds that there is no express or implied bar for the Chief Justice to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved by any particular Bench', the order said. Powers of Chief Justice in his capacity as Master of the Roster are 'wide, pervading and plenary', said the order. These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration that is to protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in the judiciary by litigants, it said. If these considerations are kept in mind, then the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular Bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular Bench and allocate the same to any other Judge is untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny, said the order. The order said the factual situation in the present case reveals that the Chief Justice with a view to preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and so also the public trust, took the emergent step by withdrawing the instant case, which was heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and listed the same before a newly constituted single bench comprising the chief justice for rehearing. 'In the attending factual scenario, if the Chief Justice had not taken preventive emergent steps, then the Chief Justice would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him,' the order said. 'The only course available to the Chief Justice in the limited reaction time, was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the single bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another Single Bench. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution,' said the order. The object is to ensure the administration of justice by allocating cases of different natures to available Benches to achieve the ultimate goal of fair and speedy justice for the litigants. To achieve this objective Chief Justice inter-alia performs the ancillary function of looking into written or oral complaints against any particular bench, the order said. This function is discharged by subjective assessment based on objective material in hand, which may be in the shape of oral or written complaint. Occasionally, such complaints are received at the 11th hour when the reaction time with the Chief Justice is limited, the order said. Thus, the Chief Justice has to decide within this limited available time, as to which course of action is to be taken. 'In such situations, the reputation of the Bench which 'heard and reserved' the case to be withdrawn is at stake. On the other hand, is the overall reputation of the institution and public trust of people at large in the judicial system,' said the order. In this piquant situation, if the Chief Justice chooses the latter, then in my humble and considered opinion, the Chief Justice stands by his oath and public trust, said the order.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC: Chief Justice withdraws case from judge after getting 'oral, written' complaints
Chandigarh, The Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court has withdrawn a case from its judge "in the interest of the institution" and to "protect the reputation" of the judge after receiving "oral and written" complaints, according to an order from the CJ. The court also asserted that the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular bench and allocate the same to any other judge is "untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny". The order came after eminent lawyer Mukul Rohtagi, the counsel for the petitioner Roop Bansal, who had sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Panchkula on April 17, had objected to the withdrawal of the case. The petition was heard by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu who reserved the judgement on May 2. However, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the case from Justice Sindhu after receiving some "oral and written" complaints and constituted another bench comprising himself and listed the matter on May 12, to "draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment". Rohtagi objected to the withdrawal of the case, arguing that the matter which is "heard and reserved" by a bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other single bench including that of the Chief Justice. "The reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, , which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice on May 12 at 03.30 P.M. to give quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned Judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible," said the order which was passed on Friday. The Chief Justice received certain complaints and these complaints impelled the Chief Justice to take emergent steps in the interest of the institution and also to preserve and protect the reputation and dignity of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, stated the order of the Chief Justice. Since the matter had been heard and reserved by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu on May 2 and the knowledge of the complaints was received by the Chief Justice as late as May 8-9, there was very little reaction time available, it said. The Chief Justice in the fitness of things took a drastic step on May 10 by passing an administrative order withdrawing the instant case from Justice Sindhu and listing it before the single bench comprising the Chief Justice alone to hear the matter on May 12, according to the order. On objection raised by the petitioner's counsel on withdrawal of the case, the order stated, "It is not disputed that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, but once assignment of a case is made by Chief Justice to a particular Bench by way of roster or by administrative order, then that particular case falls within the exclusive domain of the assigned Bench till its decision except where the Roster is changed or the Chief Justice allots that particular case to some other Bench." From a close scrutiny of the ratio of various judgments relied upon and having gone through the rules and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, "this court finds that there is no express or implied bar for the Chief Justice to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved by any particular Bench", the order said. Powers of Chief Justice in his capacity as Master of the Roster are "wide, pervading and plenary", said the order. These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration that is to protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in the judiciary by litigants, it said. If these considerations are kept in mind, then the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular Bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular Bench and allocate the same to any other Judge is untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny, said the order. The order said the factual situation in the present case reveals that the Chief Justice with a view to preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and so also the public trust, took the emergent step by withdrawing the instant case, which was heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and listed the same before a newly constituted single bench comprising the chief justice for rehearing. "In the attending factual scenario, if the Chief Justice had not taken preventive emergent steps, then the Chief Justice would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him. "The only course available to the Chief Justice in the limited reaction time, was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the single bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another Single Bench. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution," said the order. The object is to ensure the administration of justice by allocating cases of different natures to available Benches to achieve the ultimate goal of fair and speedy justice for the litigants. To achieve this objective Chief Justice inter-alia performs the ancillary function of looking into written or oral complaints against any particular bench, the order said. This function is discharged by subjective assessment based on objective material in hand, which may be in the shape of oral or written complaint. Occasionally, such complaints are received at the 11th hour when the reaction time with the Chief Justice is limited, the order said. Thus, the Chief Justice has to decide within this limited available time, as to which course of action is to be taken. "In such situations, the reputation of the Bench which 'heard and reserved' the case to be withdrawn is at stake. On the other hand, is the overall reputation of the institution and public trust of people at large in the judicial system," said the order. In this piquant situation, if the Chief Justice chooses the latter, then in my humble and considered opinion the Chief Justice stands by his oath and public trust, said the order.
