News Analysis India

Tag: Madras HC

  • SC extends exemption to linguistic minority school students from writing Tamil language paper

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday extended by one year the exemption granted to students studying in linguistic minority schools from writing the Tamil language paper in the Class 10 board examination.

    Noting that it is impossible to take a final call on the matter for time being, a bench led by Justices SK Kaul and Manoj Mishra in their order said, “It’s not possible to take a final call on the matter. An interim arrangement which was earlier applied in terms of the Madras High Court’s order is there…we extend it for a period of 1 year more.” 

    The high court in September 2019 said the government letter of July 18, 2016, which contained the guidelines for granting exemption to students from writing the Tamil language paper in the Class 10 board examination, could not be quashed.

    However, the high court had directed the authorities concerned to grant exemption to students in linguistic minority schools from writing the Tamil language paper in the Class 10 examination for the 2020-2022 academic years. It had noted that under the guidelines, only those students who have migrated from other states could apply for exemption.

    “The following guidelines are issued for consideration and disposal of applications for exemption from students seeking exemption from writing Tamil in the 10th standard board examination: “a) students whose parents are in government service or in the employment of public sector undertakings/institutions/companies/corporations/private employment/business or any other form of employment in other states and have been transferred/relocated to Tamil Nadu during the course of the academic year and who have not studied Tamil as a language in the school in the state from which they have migrated are eligible to apply,” a July 2016 letter said.

    The top court’s order came for a plea challenging the HC’s order.

    Opposing the relief sought, senior advocate AM Singhvi for Tamil Nadu Government said that automatic extension cannot be sought since the forum had lost in the HC. 

    “Having lost the matter, he (the petitioner) cannot automatically seek an extension of the relief. Only 860 students applied for the exemption. He comes to SC in 2022 and applies for relief. He says that next year give it to me. The judgement is of 2019 and the relief was for 2 years. We’re not saying that we won’t teach Tamil. I can’t agree that in TN, Tamil will not be taught. Let him take the exam this year,” Singhvi said. 

    The plea stated that in spite of the forum accepting the State’s decision to teach Tamil to the students, the State has removed all minority languages, which are the mother tongues of the Linguistic Minorities, from compulsory subjects. It was asserted that this deprived the students of learning their mother tongue and infringed upon their fundamental right to education in the language of their choice at the Primary and Secondary levels.

    “The State cannot infringe upon this fundamental right of the citizen to exercise it in the manner that he/she wishes to exercise. The decision as to what is appropriate for a student has to be taken by the student and his parents and their right to choose the same cannot be taken away by the Govt and all such actions which restrict the right of the citizens to choose, is a violation of their fundamental right under Article 19, 21A, 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India,” the petition also stated.

    “The guidelines in the form of a letter dated July 18, 2016, have all the attributes and trappings of being authoritarian by excluding the linguistic minorities of the state from seeking exemption from writing the Tamil language paper in 10th standard public examination,” the petition alleged.

    (With PTI inputs)

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday extended by one year the exemption granted to students studying in linguistic minority schools from writing the Tamil language paper in the Class 10 board examination.

    Noting that it is impossible to take a final call on the matter for time being, a bench led by Justices SK Kaul and Manoj Mishra in their order said, “It’s not possible to take a final call on the matter. An interim arrangement which was earlier applied in terms of the Madras High Court’s order is there…we extend it for a period of 1 year more.” 

    The high court in September 2019 said the government letter of July 18, 2016, which contained the guidelines for granting exemption to students from writing the Tamil language paper in the Class 10 board examination, could not be quashed.

    However, the high court had directed the authorities concerned to grant exemption to students in linguistic minority schools from writing the Tamil language paper in the Class 10 examination for the 2020-2022 academic years. It had noted that under the guidelines, only those students who have migrated from other states could apply for exemption.

    “The following guidelines are issued for consideration and disposal of applications for exemption from students seeking exemption from writing Tamil in the 10th standard board examination: “a) students whose parents are in government service or in the employment of public sector undertakings/institutions/companies/corporations/private employment/business or any other form of employment in other states and have been transferred/relocated to Tamil Nadu during the course of the academic year and who have not studied Tamil as a language in the school in the state from which they have migrated are eligible to apply,” a July 2016 letter said.

    The top court’s order came for a plea challenging the HC’s order.

    Opposing the relief sought, senior advocate AM Singhvi for Tamil Nadu Government said that automatic extension cannot be sought since the forum had lost in the HC. 

    “Having lost the matter, he (the petitioner) cannot automatically seek an extension of the relief. Only 860 students applied for the exemption. He comes to SC in 2022 and applies for relief. He says that next year give it to me. The judgement is of 2019 and the relief was for 2 years. We’re not saying that we won’t teach Tamil. I can’t agree that in TN, Tamil will not be taught. Let him take the exam this year,” Singhvi said. 

    The plea stated that in spite of the forum accepting the State’s decision to teach Tamil to the students, the State has removed all minority languages, which are the mother tongues of the Linguistic Minorities, from compulsory subjects. It was asserted that this deprived the students of learning their mother tongue and infringed upon their fundamental right to education in the language of their choice at the Primary and Secondary levels.

    “The State cannot infringe upon this fundamental right of the citizen to exercise it in the manner that he/she wishes to exercise. The decision as to what is appropriate for a student has to be taken by the student and his parents and their right to choose the same cannot be taken away by the Govt and all such actions which restrict the right of the citizens to choose, is a violation of their fundamental right under Article 19, 21A, 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India,” the petition also stated.

    “The guidelines in the form of a letter dated July 18, 2016, have all the attributes and trappings of being authoritarian by excluding the linguistic minorities of the state from seeking exemption from writing the Tamil language paper in 10th standard public examination,” the petition alleged.

    (With PTI inputs)

  • SC allows Tamil Nadu to allocate 50 per cent SS seats in medical colleges to in-service candidates

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Tamil Nadu government to allocate 50 per cent of super-speciality seats in government medical colleges to NEET-qualified in-service candidates for the current academic year.

    The permission was granted by the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath in a clarification plea preferred by the state government and in-service candidates against HC’s November 18 ruling. 

    HC’s ruling had come in a plea filed by in-service candidates seeking to direct the centre and state to allocate 50% Super Speciality seats in DM/M.Ch. Courses in Government Medical Colleges in favour of in-service Doctors of Tamil Nadu for the Academic Session 2022-2023.

    Noting that since the matter was before the SC, the Madras HC bench of Justice Suresh Kumar had asked the state government to approach the SC seeking clarification regarding the applicability of the Tamil Nadu government notification dated November 7, 2020, of reserving 50% of seats in the Government medical colleges to in-service candidates for the academic year 2022-23.

    “That it is open to the State Government as well as the petitioner herein to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek any clarification as to the continuation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during last year with regard to the conducting of counselling by the State of Tamil Nadu for filling up the 50% seats in Super Speciality courses available in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2022-2023 also by following the import of G.O.Ms.No.462 dated 07.11.2020,” HC had said. 

    In N Karthikeyan’s case, the SC bench led by former SC judge, Justice LN Rao had refused to stay the state government’s November 7 notification had expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide reservations for in-service doctors in super-speciality medical courses. 

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Tamil Nadu government to allocate 50 per cent of super-speciality seats in government medical colleges to NEET-qualified in-service candidates for the current academic year.

    The permission was granted by the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath in a clarification plea preferred by the state government and in-service candidates against HC’s November 18 ruling. 

    HC’s ruling had come in a plea filed by in-service candidates seeking to direct the centre and state to allocate 50% Super Speciality seats in DM/M.Ch. Courses in Government Medical Colleges in favour of in-service Doctors of Tamil Nadu for the Academic Session 2022-2023.

    Noting that since the matter was before the SC, the Madras HC bench of Justice Suresh Kumar had asked the state government to approach the SC seeking clarification regarding the applicability of the Tamil Nadu government notification dated November 7, 2020, of reserving 50% of seats in the Government medical colleges to in-service candidates for the academic year 2022-23.

    “That it is open to the State Government as well as the petitioner herein to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek any clarification as to the continuation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during last year with regard to the conducting of counselling by the State of Tamil Nadu for filling up the 50% seats in Super Speciality courses available in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2022-2023 also by following the import of G.O.Ms.No.462 dated 07.11.2020,” HC had said. 

    In N Karthikeyan’s case, the SC bench led by former SC judge, Justice LN Rao had refused to stay the state government’s November 7 notification had expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide reservations for in-service doctors in super-speciality medical courses. 

  • Medical colleges asked to amend unscientific information about LGBTQIA+ in textbooks

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Medical institutions in India should not teach in a way that comes across as insulting or derogatory to those belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community and authors of medical textbooks must amend all “unscientific information,” the National Medical Commission said on Wednesday.

    Based on the Madras HC judgment from last month,  the advisory dated October 13, 2021, says: “All the medical colleges, universities, and institutions are requested that while teaching UG and PG students wherever the issue of gender or similar kind of arise, the mention of Clinical history or complaints or sign or symptoms, examination findings or history about nomenclature shall not be taught in such a way that it becomes/perceived in any way derogatory or discriminatory or insulting to LGBTQIA+ community”.

    The NMC advisory will be applicable for all medical colleges, universities, and higher PG institutions. The Commission has further advised that the authors of medical textbooks make amends to information pertaining to the virginity of LGBTQIA members and follow the available scientific literature and guidelines that have been issued by the government and are based on the directions of the court. 

    The educational institutions, meanwhile, have been asked to reject textbooks that have unscientific, derogatory and discriminatory information about the LGBTQIA+ community.

    As per the available data, there are 542 medical colleges and 64 PG medical institutions in India. 

    A survey, conducted by Ipsos Research Pvt Ltd, in India this year shows that 3% of the Indian population identified as homosexual (including gay and lesbian), 9% identified as bisexual, 1% identified as pansexual and 2% identified as asexual.

    Reshama Prasad, a member of the National Council for Transgender Persons, hailed this decision as much needed for the sake of the human dignity and rights of LGBTQIA people. 

    The Madras High Court last month observed that medical courses in India reaffirm queerphobia and discrimination against LGBTQIA+ communities and called for necessary reforms in the medical curriculum. 

  • SC sets aside Madras HC observation on EWS reservation in All India Quota for medical admissions

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday set aside a Madras High Court direction that the Centre must seek the top court’s approval before implementing 10 per cent reservation for the EWS in all-India quota (AIQ) seats of medical colleges, saying it “transgressed the limitations” by entering into areas which were alien to the issue.

    The apex court made clear however that it is not quashing the entire high court order passed on August 25 or stating any opinion on its merit but just setting aside the observations made with regard to top court’s approval on Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota.

    A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna said the high court should not have expressed such an opinion while hearing a contempt petition filed by ruling DMK party in Tamil Nadu for alleged non-compliance of July 27, 2020 order by the Centre on the issue.

    “We are clearly of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limitations in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by entering into areas which were alien to the issue as to whether the judgement dated July 27, 2020 was complied with,” the bench said.

    It said that having come to the conclusion that there was no breach of the judgement (July 27, 2020), the rest of discussions in the order of the High Court were unnecessary for the purpose of the contempt petition.

    “We therefore hold that the direction that has been issued by the high court in paragraph…is alien to the exercise of contempt jurisdiction and accordingly shall stand set aside,” the bench said.

    The top court clarified, that the directions of the high court (with regard to EWS quota) is set aside not on merits but on the sole ground that such a direction has transgressed the limitation of the contempt jurisdiction.

    “Substantive petitions have been filed before this court challenging the notification dated July 29 (on grant of 27 per cent reservation for OBC and 10 per cent for EWS category in NEET admissions for medical courses), we are clarifying that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the submissions which will arise for determination in a group of petitions which are pending before this court for adjudication,” it said.

    The top court also clarified that in view of the pendency of petitions before this court it is not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the findings of the high court which had approved the July 29 notification providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

    During the hearing, the top court said, “What the Madras High Court has done is that it has asked the Centre to seek approval of a five-judge bench which will be hearing a challenge made to the validity of 103rd constitutional amendment providing 10 per cent EWS quota”.

    The top court disposed of the Centre’s appeal against the Madras High Court order.

    The bench said that it would hear on October 7, a batch of pleas challenging the Centre’s July 29 notification providing 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Class (OBC) and 10 per cent for EWS category in NEET admissions for medical courses.

    Senior advocate Arvind Dattar, appearing for some candidates, said they will be raising the question on the validity of the income limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum fixed for EWS category besides the challenge to the July 29 notification.

    Senior advocate Shyam Divan, assisted by advocate Vivek Singh pressed for some interim relief for not implementing the quota for this academic year.

    He said that when the information brochure was issued in February this year, the Centre cannot interfere with the admission process midway by changing the criteria of admission, which will take away 2500 PG seats of General Category students and therefore the centre’s July 29 notification is unconstitutional.

    The top court directed Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, to file a joint counter affidavit to the batch of petitions by October 6 and said it will be hearing the matter on October 7.

    On July 29, the Centre had decided to provide 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes and 10 per cent reservation for EWS in the all India Quota scheme for undergraduate and postgraduate medical/dental courses (MBBS/MD/MS/ Diploma/BDS /MDS).

    On August 25, while disposing of the contempt plea of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party moved against the Centre for non-compliance of earlier order, the Madras High Court had approved the July 29 notification providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

    The high court, however, had said the inclusion of a further 10 per cent by way of vertical reservation for EWS would require the approval of the Supreme Court and to this extent, the reservation for the EWS, as indicated in the July 29 notification, has to be regarded as impermissible till such approval is obtained.

    However, with regard to 10 per cent reservation for EWS, the high court had observed: “The additional reservation provided for economically weaker sections in the notification of July 29, 2021 cannot be permitted, except with the approval of the Supreme Court in such regard.”

    The high court had approved the notification of the Centre providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

  • Supreme Court​ to hear Centre’s plea against Madras HC observation on EWS quota in medical admissions

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday the Centre’s plea against the Madras High Court’s observation that the notification on grant of 10 per cent quota to the economically weaker sections (EWS) in all-India quota (AIQ) seats of medical colleges would require approval of the top court.

    While disposing of the contempt plea of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) against the Centre, the Madras High Court, on August 25, had approved the July 29 notification of the central government providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC (other backward classes) candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the all-India quota (AIQ).

    The high court, however, had said the inclusion of a further 10 per cent by way of vertical reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) would require the approval of the Supreme Court and to this extent, the reservation for the EWS, as indicated in the July 29 notification, has to be regarded as impermissible till such approval is obtained.

    However, with regard to 10 per cent reservation for EWS, the high court had observed: “The additional reservation provided for economically weaker sections in the notification of July 29, 2021 cannot be permitted, except with the approval of the Supreme Court in such regard.”

    Aggrieved by this, the Centre rushed to the top court on September 3 against the high court’s observation and its plea is listed for hearing on Monday before a bench comprising justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna.

    In addition to the Centre’s appeal, the top court would also hear pleas filed by Neil Aurelio Nunes and Yash Tekwani pertaining to the notification.

    Earlier, the high court had approved the notification of the Centre providing 27 per cent reservation to OBC candidates for admission in central medical colleges under the AIQ.

    However, it had rejected a plea for more reservation for Tamil Nadu and had said the reservation of AIQ seats for admission to the undergraduate, postgraduate and diploma medical and dental courses across the states must be uniform.

    Logically, if the seats are given to candidates across the country, there cannot be reservation to one extent in one state and to another extent in a different one, the Madras High Court had said.

    “To the extent that 27 per cent of the seats available for admission in Central educational institutions is reserved for OBC candidates other than the creamy layer, and such figure having been arrived at upon empirical studies being conducted, the provision of 27 per cent reservation for OBC candidates in addition to the approved reservation for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates as indicated in the notification of July 29, 2021 may be permissible subject to the formal approval of the Supreme Court,” it had said.

    The DMK had contended that the OBC candidates in the state must be made eligible for 50 per cent reservation as envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993.

    The high court had then closed the contempt petition from the ruling DMK seeking to punish the central government officials concerned for not implementing an order of the High Court issued in July 2020.

    It had added that the in-principle approval of the Supreme Court for providing reservation for OBC candidates under AIQ for medical admission in the state is apparent from its order dated October 26, 2020.

    To such extent, the provision made for 27 per cent reservation in such regard appears to be permissible, since the apex court approved the implementation of reservation for OBC candidates beginning from the academic year 2021-22 by the same order.

    On the issue of 10 per cent quota for EWS category students, the high court had said that the reservation cannot exceed more than 50 per cent as the Supreme Court judgement in the Indra Sawhney case had stated that the quota cannot exceed the cap unless there are exceptional circumstances.

  • Plea to restrain media too far-fetched, SC tells EC after judge’s ‘murder’ remark makes waves

    By Express News Service
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday told the Election Commission that their request to stop media from reporting oral observations is too far-fetched and cannot be allowed.

    The observation by a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud came while it was hearing the poll panel’s plea challenging the Madras HC’s ‘murder charges’ remark.

    The Madras High Court had slammed the Election Commission of India for allowing political rallies amid a deadly second wave of COVID-19 and had observed, “Your institution is singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19. Election Commission officers should be booked on murder charges probably.”

    During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for the Election Commission sought that the media should not be allowed to report on oral observations of the court and that no criminal complaint can be filed on the basis of oral observations of the court.

    At this, Justice Chandrachud said, “The discussion that takes place is as much in the public interest as the final order of the court. The discussion in court is a dialogue between the bar and the bench. Media is a very powerful watchdog in protecting the sanctity of this process.”

    Justice Chandrachud said, “We don’t want to demoralise the High Courts. They are important pillars in our democracy.”

    The court asked the Election Commission to take the Madras HC’s observations in the right spirit.

    Justice Chandrachud said, “To say that ECI is not subject to judicial review is not correct. To ask a judge to contain what he says in Court will not do justice to any judicial process.”

    At this, EC said, “Somewhere a line has to be drawn. Harsh criticism is welcome, but certain observations should not have been made.”

    The top court has reserved the order on the EC’s plea against the Madras HC remark holding it responsible for the COVID-19 surge.

  • Supreme Court reserves order on Election Commission’s plea against Madras HC remarks

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order on the Election Commission’s plea against Madras HC remarks holding its officials responsible for the surge in COVID-19 cases and fastening them with murder charges.

    A bench of justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah said it did not want to “demoralise” the high courts as they are vital pillars of the democracy, and the various critical remarks, as alleged by the Election Commission, are often said in an open dialogue between the bar and the bench.

    The apex court said it would pronounce its order “expeditiously” on the EC’s plea against critical remarks such as fastening murder charges against its officials.

    The Election Commission had moved the apex court on Saturday, challenging the critical observations made by the Madras High Court holding it responsible for a surge in COVID-19 cases in the country, saying the remarks were “uncalled for, blatant and disparaging”.