Latest news with #SheelNagu
Time of India
a day ago
- General
- Time of India
UT holds meeting to reconsider security deposit for group home admissions
Chandigarh: In the wake of Punjab and Haryana High Court directions, the Chandigarh administration has called a meeting of the governing body of the UTTHAAN Society of the group home in Sector 31, on June 13. The governing body meeting, to be chaired by the UT chief secretary, will address the issue of the exorbitant security deposit. Terming the security deposit of Rs 20 lakh for admission to the group home for mental health patients as "exorbitant," the Punjab and Haryana high court, on May 19, directed the Chandigarh administration to reconsider it. The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel instructed the administration to "apply its mind on the aspect of the quantum of security amount of Rs 20 lakh, which deprives admission into the said mental illness home even to deserving mental health patients merely because of a paucity of funds. " The court observed, "After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, especially on the question of the quantum of security deposit of Rs 20 lakh required for admission of mental health patients in Group Utthaan Society and testing the same on the anvil of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly sections 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Act, mandating every person suffering from mental illness to be treated with dignity, reasonableness, and without any discrimination, the quantum of security deposit of Rs 20 lakh is exorbitant. " The court directed the governing body to hold an emergent meeting to reconsider the aspect of the deposit of Rs 20 lakh as security, which is unaffordable for several genuine mental health patients. MSID:: 121601834 413 |
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
GMCH-32 PG medical admissions: Punjab and Haryana HC shuts door on domicile quota
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on May 27 dismissed a batch of four civil writ petitions, including Shubhamdeep Singh Kang vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, challenging the modalities for postgraduate (PG) medical admissions in Chandigarh. The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel reinforced the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Dr Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel, which declared domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses unconstitutional. The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel addressed the contentious issue of residence-based reservations for NEET PG admissions (MD/MS) 2024, following multiple legal challenges and clarification requests by the Union Territory (UT) Administration. The High Court held that admissions must strictly follow the Supreme Court's directive, which struck down residence-based quotas and mandated that state quota seats—beyond a reasonable number of institutional preference seats—be filled based on merit in the all-India examination. The High Court affirmed the binding nature of the apex court's ruling on the current admission cycle. The court also rejected the UT Administration's attempt to convert remaining UT Pool state quota seats into Institutional Preference Pool seats for the third round of counselling, as proposed in a public notice dated April 9, 2025. The administration argued that the conversion would prevent disruption in the admission process and avoid exceeding the 50% cap on the All India Quota (AIQ). However, the High Court found the move inconsistent with the Supreme Court's order, observing: 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrey Goel SC judgment had afforded protection to the students who had already received the benefit of reservation on the residence/domicile basis and were either undergoing or had successfully completed their course.' Regarding petitioner Shubhamdeep Singh Kang—who had surrendered his allotted seat after the first and second counselling rounds in anticipation of a better option—the court held that he did not qualify for protection under the Supreme Court's ruling. The bench noted: 'In light of such voluntary act of surrender, it cannot be said that the petitioner was pursuing the course in question, thereby, failing to be within the foundational basis for protection contemplated under Shrey Goel SC judgment.' The court directed the UT administration to conduct admissions in accordance with the Shrey Goel judgment and the Supreme Court's order dated March 24, 2025, which dismissed the UT's clarification application with costs of Rs 10,000. The High Court's ruling reinforces a merit-based approach, ensuring that vacant seats are filled strictly on NEET PG rankings, not regional preferences. This decision is expected to have wide-ranging implications for PG medical admissions in Chandigarh, particularly for the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector-32B, where the contested seats are located. What does this ruling mean? The Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling carries several key implications: 1. End of domicile-based reservations: The court reaffirmed the Supreme Court's position that residence-based reservations for PG medical courses are unconstitutional. This levels the playing field for all NEET-qualified candidates across India, regardless of their residential status in Chandigarh. 2. Merit-based admissions: With the UT Pool (previously reserved for domicile candidates) no longer valid, all remaining seats must now be filled based solely on NEET PG 2024 merit rankings. 3. Protection for existing students: Students who were admitted under the old domicile-based system and are currently pursuing or have completed their courses will retain protection. However, new applicants—like Kang, who relinquished his seat—are not eligible, underlining the importance of continuity in education. 4. Rejection of administrative workarounds: The court's dismissal of the UT Administration's attempt to convert UT Pool seats into institutional preference seats underscores that any effort to circumvent the Supreme Court's directive will not be permitted. 5. Impact on future admissions: For the 2024–25 session and beyond, this ruling could shape admission policies in other states or UTs with similar systems. It may also reduce litigation by clarifying that vacant seats must revert to the merit-based AIQ, provided the 50% cap is not breached.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
NEET PG counselling: HC upholds UT's move on 18 seats
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the UT administration's decision converting 18 domicile seats under state quota to institutional preference for the third counselling of postgraduate courses (MD/MS) at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32. These admissions for the session 2024-25 are being carried out on the basis of rank obtained in NEET (PG) 2024. No domicile quota will be there for these admissions, the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel held. The court was dealing with a clutch of petitions challenging UT's move. The state quota seats are further divided into two categories, i.e institutional preference and UT Chandigarh pool. For third counselling, around 35 state quota seats were left with 18 under UT Chandigarh pool (residence/domicile based) and remaining of institutional preference. On April 9, the administration issued a public notice to convert the seats under domicile category to institutional preference, which was under challenge. GMCH-32 director Ashok Atri said 'We held a committee meeting today and we are yet to get the hard copy of the decision. Things are in pipeline. We will conduct the third counselling accordingly.'
Indian Express
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Cash at residence: Govt likely to bring impeachment motion against Justice Varma
FOLLOWING his indictment by the Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel, the government is likely to bring an impeachment motion in the upcoming monsoon session against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, The Indian Express has learnt. On May 3, a three-member panel, set up by the Supreme Court, had found credence in the allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at the judge's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. Appointed by the CJI on March 22, the panel, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka; recorded the statements of a range of witnesses. The Indian Express had reported on May 9 that then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, along with a recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge to President Draupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Justice Varma was also asked to resign but he is learnt to have refused to do so. He was transferred out on March 20 and he took oath as judge at the Allahabad High Court on April 5 but he has not been assigned work. It is learnt that the President has now referred the former CJI's recommendation to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha Speaker. Top sources in the government said that since the former CJI's report recommended impeachment, the motion has to be brought in the Parliament. For a motion of impeachment to be taken up, it has to be moved by not less than 100 members in the Lower House, and at least 50 members in the Upper House. 'We will bring the motion in the upcoming session. We will ask both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker to take the sense of the House,' said a source, adding that the government will seek consensus from Opposition parties since the final step of impeachment has to be cleared by a two-third majority in both the Houses. Both Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar and Speaker Om Birla are likely to reach out to Opposition leaders for evolving a consensus. 'This exercise will begin soon,' said a source. Sources in the Congress said that the party had not yet been approached for a discussion on the matter. The Monsoon session of Parliament is expected to begin by the third week of July. The Constitution states that a judge of a constitutional court can only be removed on two grounds: proved misbehaviour' and 'incapacity.' The procedure to be followed for removal is laid down in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Once a motion for impeachment is adopted by either House, the Speaker/ Chairman has to constitute a three-member committee of inquiry. The committee is headed by the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, and has a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. If the committee renders a guilty finding, the report of the committee is then adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and the judge's removal is debated. For an impeachment motion against an SC or HC judge to go through, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge — and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President will pass an order for the removal of the judge. On May 26, the Supreme Court administration had rejected a plea seeking the panel's report on Justice Varma of the committee under the Right to Information Act.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
BBMB row: In high court, Punjab accuses Haryana govt, Centre of concealing fact
1 2 Chandigarh: Punjab govt on Thursday submitted before the Punjab and Haryana high court that the Centre and Haryana govt had concealed facts before it with regard to a meeting called by the Union home secretary on May 2. A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing arguments on Punjab govt's plea seeking a review or modification of its May 6 order pertaining to Union home secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana. The high court on May 6 had directed Punjab to abide by the decision of the May 2 meeting held under the chairmanship of Mohan. Punjab submitted that the May 2 meeting was called on the issue of law and order, and not on the water-sharing matter, and this "fact was concealed" from the court. Senior advocate Gurminder Singh, who appeared in the high court on Punjab's behalf, later said, "The BBMB held a meeting on April 28 where no decision could be taken. Haryana govt made a representation to the BBMB chairman to refer the matter to the Centre under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, 1974. On April 29, on the basis of the letter, and on the basis of a letter by CM Haryana Nayab Singh Saini to Union minister Manohar Lal Khattar, the issue was referred to the Centre. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo However, the meeting referred to before the court was convened by Union home secretary on the issue of law and order. This fact was concealed from the court. The court was also not told that the matter had been referred on April 29." He added the Centre had earlier told the court that on May 2, it had taken the decision to release an additional 4,500 cusecs to Haryana. This decision was to be taken by the competent authority and was "illegal", he said. "There was misrepresentation of facts collectively by Haryana, BBMB and Centre against Punjab. Secondly, the decision of May 2 (to release water to Haryana) has been placed on record on May 9 and its compliance could not have been given on May 6," he said, adding that minutes of the May 2 meeting have still not been provided and only records of discussion have been given, which have no legal parlance,' he said. The case is listed for further hearing on Friday. As per the resolution passed by BBMB on April 30 by "majority vote", it had resolved to release 8,500 cusecs of water for eight days (April 24 to May 1), "as a one-time exception/relaxation" without "placing of indent" by Punjab. BBMB chairman Manoj Tripathi had, meanwhile, assured to look after the needs of Punjab during the filling period. Later, at a meeting with the Union home secretary in New Delhi on May 2, the BBMB chairman claimed that the board's decision of April 30 could not be implemented due to "deployment of police force" by Punjab.
