Amid claims being made that about the 'supremacy' of the Parliament over Judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Gavai on Sunday cleared the air over the said controversy and made it clear that 'Constitution of India' alone is supreme. The CJI said, "On being asked about the issue of who is Supreme, whether Judiciary or Executive or the Parliament? I can say that the Constitution of...
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in the last week of May, the plea challenging the decision of the National Board of Examination (NBE) to conduct the NEET PG 2025 exams in two shifts. The Counsel for the petitioners mentioned before the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih for an urgent listing of the matter, considering that the exams would soon commence in June. He said, "This is regarding NEET PG of this year, we are challenging the two exams happening, the process starts in June, kindly have it on Monday." The CJI replied, "Will keep it next week" Notably, the NEET PG exam is scheduled to take place on June 15. The results will be declared by July 15. The Court had on May 5 sought a response from the National Board of Examinations, National Medical Council and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment giving various directions to stop seat-blocking in NEET-PG counselling. The Court also directed the publication of raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae of NEET-PG exams. Why Is NBE's Two-Shift Policy Under Challenge? As per the writ petition, holding the examination in two shifts has the potential for unfairness due to varying difficulty levels between shifts. It seeks direction to the National Board of Examinations to conduct the NEET-PG 2025 in a single shift to maintain "just, fair, reasonable and equitable" grounds of competition for all the candidates. "Holding such an extensive examination in two shifts directly violates the rights of the candidates under Article 14 as maintaining just, fair, reasonable, and equitable grounds of competition is almost impossible because of the lack of transparency in the moderation and normalization process. It also violates article 21 of the candidates, as the process violates the basic right to fair examination," Further, the plea expresses apprehensions that since NEET-PG 2024 was conducted in a two-shift format, it resulted in a challenge before the Supreme Court because of problems arising out of such a system. The petition refers to an assessment made by a "prominent online coaching platform" of the disparity in the number of questions in each subject in both shifts in NEET PG 2024. It is stressed that the disparity in questions for each subject creates inflation and variation in marks and rankings. "As can be clearly seen from the above, the number of questions from several subjects vary, which is likely to grant an undue advantage to several candidates. It will create inflation and variation in marks and rankings, violating the right to equality under article 14 of the candidates. It is humbly submitted that to weed out such discrepancies and provide a uniform/equitable testing ground and fair competition, single shift is the only viable solution." There is a likelihood that one batch of candidates may face a more difficult question paper than the other batch, as happened in the case of NEET PG 2024, where it was alleged that the question paper in the second shift was easier. Therefore, it is prayed that the NEET PG 2025 be conducted in a single shift, as noted in the petition. Case Details: Dr. ADITI & ORS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS| DIARY NO. - 22918/2025 Tags Supreme Court NEET PG 2025National Board of Examinations (NBE)CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih Next Story 'Abuse Of Process' : Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS University VC Gursimran Kaur Bakshi 23 May 2025 1:26 PM Listen to this Article The Supreme Court today (May 23) quashed the two first information reports registered against Vinod Bihari Lal, the Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It stated that the said FIRs were nothing but an abuse of the process of law. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan also thereby set aside the orders and judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court . Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act. "In Hinduism...": Top Court's Reply As Waqf Hearing Ends, Verdict Changes to laws governing the Waqf boards have been challenged in the Supreme Court (File). The Supreme Court discussed whether waqfs are a fundamental part of Islam or a charitable act, as petitioners argued the Waqf Amendment Law violates rights and the government claimed waqfs are not essential to practice of the religion. New Delhi: A discussion on waqfs - charitable donation to be de-linked from Islam or an integral part of that religion, 'a dedication to God... for spiritual benefit', - was a highlight in the Supreme Court Thursday as petitioners concluded arguments saying the Waqf (Amendment) Law violates fundamental rights. Responding to the government's argument Wednesday - that while 'waqf' is an Islamic concept it is not an essential part of the religion and, therefore, not a fundamental right - senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court, "Waqf is a dedication to God... for afterlife. Unlike other religions, waqf is a charity to God..." The court, though, pointed out that 'religious donation' isn't exclusive to Islam; "... in Hinduism there is 'moksha'," Chief Justice BR Gavai said. "Charity is a fundamental concept of other religions too..." And Justice Augustine George Masih, the second judge on the bench, referred to a similar provision in Christianity, and said, "We are all trying to get into 'heaven'." At the end of the petitioners' arguments - on this, the hearing's third day - the Chief Justice BR Gavai-led bench reserved its order on a plea for an interim halt of the contentious legislation. Waqf - Charity Or Religion? Jostling over the positioning of waqfs - charitable donation or religious activity - has been seen as critical in the larger context of the court either disallowing law or allowing it to stand. The petitioners have sought to counter the government's argument about waqfs not being vital religious practice by saying 'no outside authority has any right to say that are not essential...' The focus on what a waqf means is seen as critical as it informs much of the petitioners' other arguments - that the new law interferes with essential religious, in this case, Islamic, practices. The government has argued that by not recognising (correctly, it insists) waqf as a fundamental religious right, it allows for fair and transparent administration of the properties. This is important, it has argued, because unlike with Hinduism, waqfs "include many secular institutions like madrasas, orphanages..." An example of that was heard as the court wound down for the day; a woman representing a Tamil Nadu village said the entire settlement had been declared waqf land, including a Hindu temple dating to the Chola dynasty, which ruled between the ninth and 13th centuries CE. Composition Of Waqf Boards Another argument, one that has been raised repeatedly, in court, in Parliament, and in protests nationwide, is the mandatory appointment of non-Muslims to waqf boards. The government has backed the proposal by arguing waqf boards perform fundamentally 'secular duties' - i.e., management of assets. Those challenging the law, however, insist it violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs. Mr Sibal referred, again, to this provision in today's arguments, pointing out operationalisation of this means Muslims will be minorities on panels meant to govern aspects of their religion. The Supreme Court had earlier also raised this issue, asking the government is this means nominating non-Hindus to bodies governing temples could become accepted practice. 'Who Asks For Religious Proof' A third problematic point in the new Waqf Law is the stipulation that only Muslims practicing their faith for at least five years can make donations. This ties back to the secular/religious conceptualisation of waqfs, as argued by Mr Sibal on Wednesday. "This is just to infuse terror... endowments are there in every religion. Which religious endowment asks you to prove you have been practising... Who asks for proof of religion?" senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, had said. 'Waqf By User' The final issue around which this hearing has revolved is the waqf-by-user aspect that has been struck down by the law. The 'waqf by user' provision allows waqf boards to claim properties without documentation if used by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes. This has been red-flagged by the government and the top court in earlier hearings. In April then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said there is concern, pointing to claims the Delhi High Court was on waqf land. On this, the government said since the waqf-by-user had been made statutorily permissible in the 1954 Waqf Act, the right could therefore be taken away by new legislation. Specifically, the government has also assured critics removing this provision will not affect properties already designated as such. On Interim Stay... The government has said it will oppose any attempt to order a stay, partial or complete, on implementation of this new law, noting that it is a settled position in law that courts do not have authority to stay statutory provisions, either directly or indirectly. "There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament and an interim stay is against the principle of balance of powers," the government said in April. Waqf Petitions In Court The Supreme Court is hearing a handful of petitions (whittled down from nearly 200) challenging the new laws, which include rules that non-Muslim members must be part of the Central Waqf Council and state-specific boards, and that donations may only be made by practicing Muslims. The revised Waqf laws were passed by Parliament in April after heated debates in Parliament and a series of stormy meetings by a joint committee. They have been criticised as "draconian" by the opposition but hailed by the government as an effort to ensure transparency and gender equality. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TASMAC 'Crossing all limits': Supreme Court raps ED over Tasmac raids, issues notice NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday slammed the over (Tasmac) raids in connection with financial irregularities and said that the ED is crossing all limits. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih, expressed strong concerns about ED's actions, repeating thrice that the agency was exceeding boundaries."ED is crossing all limits," said the apex court before staying proceedings post-ED raid on state-run liquor retailer. The law officer opposed the order, saying the issue involved corruption over Rs 1,000 crore and the ED is not crossing the limits "at least in this case." "Enforcement Directorate is violating federal principle, how can it raid Tasmac," asked the SC. The bench granted ED a fortnight to submit their response. The enforcement agency maintained that the case involved substantial financial misconduct. The stay was granted in response to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the ED’s raids on Tasmac premises. 'Blow' to BJP's efforts to 'malign' TN govt: DMK Senior DMK leader R S Bharathi called it a "big blow" to BJP's efforts to malign the DMK-led state government and labeled ED as a "blackmailing organisation." "In Tamil Nadu, the M K Stalin-led DMK government that assumed office in 2021 has been gaining popularity ever since and the Chief Minister's stature has been rising. Unable to digest this and the DMK alliance's electoral triumph after 2021, the ED was used to malign the DMK and the BJP leaders used to make all kinds of charges," Bharathi said. "The SC staying the ED probe against TASMAC is a big blow to such things and is in deference to the sentiments of the people of Tamil Nadu...we welcome the (SC) order," he stated. What is the Tasmac row? ED conducted extensive searches last week and interrogated IAS officer S Visakan, the managing director of Tasmac, in connection with suspected financial irregularities. The investigation began at 6 am with raids at his Manapakkam residence and multiple locations across Chennai. ED officials, accompanied by CRPF personnel, carried out searches at various premises in Besant Nagar, Choolaimedu, Anna Salai, Teynampet, and T Nagar, targeting both residences and business establishments. Film producer Akash Baskaran's house in Teynampet was also searched, though ED did not disclose the connection to the investigation. Following an eight-hour search at his residence, ED officials took Visakan and his wife to their Nungambakkam office for questioning. Visakan was later returned to his Manapakkam residence around 9 pm, where interrogation continued. The ED had previously summoned Visakan twice, but these summons were not complied with, according to agency sources. In March, after searching the Tasmac head office, distilleries, and breweries, the agency suspected a Rs 1,000 crore scam involving illegal cash generation through inflated bottle prices from manufacturers. The investigation was initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), based on FIRs registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anticorruption (DVAC) between 2016 and 2021. During this period, Visakan was detained at the Tasmac office for approximately two days. Tasmac's legal attempt to challenge the ED searches was unsuccessful, with the Madras High Court rejecting their plea to declare the searches illegal. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ayodhya case day 5: SC asks for exact spot of Ram’s birth, Ram Lalla lawyer says it is below the Babri Masjid dome CJI Gogoi reprimands Rajeev Dhavan, the counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board, who objects to Vaidyanathan's citing findings of reports etc and calls this "hop, skip and jump" way of argument. The day-to-day hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case in the Supreme Court got into its fifth day, after a three-day interval. After the weekends, the court remained closed on Monday due to Eid. A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer is hearing the case. The 5-judge bench resumed hearing the case with Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajmaan, making his submissions in the case. The Ram Mandir case has been taken up for a day to day hearing after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation failed. Counsel for deity Ram Lalla Virajmaan puts forth their submissions: CS Vaidyanathan read out the pleadings of Muslim parties in the case. “They don’t have a case that they have been in continuous possession of the premises”, he submited. The counsel argued on how the birthplace (Janamasthan) can be regarded as a juridical place. He said that there was a temple at the spot before the mosque was built. There is no evidence that namaz was offered in the inner courtyard, added the senior advocate. Hindus have been undertaking the holy pilgrimage to Ayodhya since time immemorial. While putting forth this submission, Vaidyanathan cited the reference of a 72-year-old Muslim witness named Mohammad Hasim. According to the lawyer, the witness had testified that Ayodhya is as sacred for Hindu’s as Mecca is for Muslims. Supreme court asked the Ram Lalla’s counsel, as to which spot was regarded as Ram’s birthplace. To this CS Vaidyanathan submitted that the birthplace was below the central dome of the Babri Masjid. Three judges of the Allahabad High Court had held that there was a temple at the disputed site, Vaidyanathan informed the bench. By 2:1 majority, the birthplace was narrowed down to the spot under the central dome of the demolished mosque. However, Justice Sharma treated the entire property as the birthplace. Justice SU Khan of the high court had said that the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple,” the senior advocate told the bench. Citing an SC order, the counsel said that the presence of an idol is not necessary for a place to be regarded as holy in Hinduism. If there is a sense of reverence – religious efficacy is believed- no idol is required for a place to be regarded as holy, said C S Vaidyanathan. He added, “There is no need for the actual presence of idol, belief and faith of Hindu persons make the place holy. Medieval travelogues by foreign travellers mention parikrama by Hindu devotees at the Ram janmabhoomi. This indicates that the practice of worship in the outer courtyard continued. There is no proof that between 1856 and 1949 there was only a mosque. The evidence will show that between 1855 and 1934 there is no proof that namaaz was actually offered in the mosque.” Hindus believe, even PM Modi once said Hindus see God in every animal, tree, river, hill, & stone. Then every place & every object is holy. Why give special importance to one place or a temple? Only one of the 2 contradictory beliefs can be true, not both, said the counsel appearing for Ram Lalla. Meanwhile, Senior advocate K Parasaran, also appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, added to the argument, explaining the abstract nature of Hindu religion and the importance of symbolism. Justice Ashok Bhushan agreed with Parasaran’s argument, citing the Kamadgiri temple parikrama. “Ram and Sita are believed to have lived on that hill- sanctity attached based on this belief alone”, said the judge. After the hearing resumed post-lunch, CS Vaidyanathan submitted that the birthplace itself is a deity. It’s not the abode of the deity. So, there cannot be a partition of the Janmasthan. Quoting (2005) 1 SCC 457, para 16, to state that a religious endowment does not create a title in respect of the property dedicated in anybody’s favour, Vaidyanathan argued that possessory right cannot be claimed against a place which itself is a ity. Justice SA Bobde asked, so your submission is that there used to be a temple there and by virtue of the ruins, it continues to be a deity? To this the counsel replies, the structure may have been ruined but the faithful devotees remained. In the meanwhile, CJI Gogoi reprimanded Rajeev Dhavan, the counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board, who objected to Vaidyanathan citing findings of reports etc and called this “hop, skip and jump” way of argument, adding that no evidence has been placed on record yet. Gogoi asked Dhavan to wait for his turn to place his evidence if he so wishes to. The CJI clarified that the counsels can take as much time as they want to put forth their submissions, “Mr Vaidyanathan you argue your case as you want and take as much time as you want. We are not in any hurry. This is for all the Counsel. Let us be loud and clear here. We are not in any hurry and we don’t want any more interruptions”. With this, the bench concluded the hearing for the day, and it will resume tomorrow. The daily hearings were prescribed by the Constitutional bench on August 2 after taking note of the failed mediation by a three-member panel led by former Supreme Court judge FMI Kalifulla, also comprising of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu.The panel had said in its report that the Hindu and the Muslim parties had not been able to find a solution to the long-standing title suit. K Rajaram IRS 23525 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorCBLxr9ZJWN-p0%3DMwT31J1dr-o_Ur%3Drx8YKnd0ZuSa3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
