NRI quota in PG medical and dental courses in private colleges not sacrosanct: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court decided that in any given year private medical schools are not expected to have a quota of NRI for admittances. The current 15 percent norm is not compulsory, but it only has to offer fair notification if a medical college or institution or the State regulator wishes to do so.
The High Court found that the alteration of the seat pattern in Rajasthan university, in the academic year 2020-21, was unsustainable under the law by the abolition of the NRI quota for admission to post-graduate medical and dental courses.
However, the bench of judges reaffirmed the other ruling of the High Court of Rajasthan and observed that “NRI quotas are not sacrosanct, inviolable in terms of existence or extent in a given year.”
Furthermore, the Bench observes that “private colleges and institutions that provide such professional and technical courses have some space for the elbow,” in conjunction with the medical council of India Act and regulations on admissions and the decisions of the Supreme Court and can specify whether and to what degree they want to provide NRIs or management quotas.
Furthermore, this bench clarified that the “discretion should be tempered; if such a quota is exercised, it should be reasonable and within an adequate time revised or modified.”
The Court also held that a special advisory meeting by the Board, limited or restricted to seats for which admissions were made in compliance with the orders of the single judge should be held in light of the prevailing conditions.
Minor girl burnt alive: Jharkhand High Court says Hathras not only in UP but in Jharkhand too
In response to yet another horrendous case of the murder of a small girl and the ensuing police incompetence and inadequacy, the High Court in Jharkhand noted that Hathras was not merely a location in Uttar Pradesh, but such incident also existed in Jharkhand. The court listed the horrific murder in Hathras of a 19-year-old Dalit girl who has enraged the world.
It was as horrible the case of Jharkhand, which occurred at Giridih. The FIR filed by Shankar Paswan, a 15-year-old girl, says that a man in Dhanwar, Pintu Paswan sprinkled kerosene and burned it to Shankar’s daughter.
Pintu tried to flee in the confusion and trauma by removing the roof tiles, but Shankar’s family member picked him up. The family members of Pintu who came to wrench Pintu from the clutches of the family of Shankar were added to the turmoil.
Shankar also noted that the accused persons identified in the FIR travel freely in the village and are encouraged by police inaction.
The Police Superintendent of Giridih submitted before the court that the police took reasonable steps and investigated the case. He also said that they are also investigating whether the case involves the killing of honour.
The bench considers nothing to say that the police have attempted to arrest the accused and ordered the police to complete the investigation without any delay.
The petitioner also prayed for action in his written application against the guilty, who are free to harass the family. He also asked the Court to remove the lock that had been unlawfully shut off over the last four months on the pretext of an investigation.
A same-sex couple moves Delhi High Court to get married
The Delhi High Court sought permission from the same-sex couple to get married under the Special Marriage Rule. In their appeal, the couple said that for eight years they have lived together but that they cannot marry because both are women.
The petition was made before the Court, Judge Navin Chawla, who ordered the registry to list the petitions before the Chief Justice’s Bench, which has already heard a PIL seeking a declaration stating the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the Special Marriage Act (SMA).
Both women, 47 and 36, have said that the easy thing that a married couple takes for granted is to open a common bank account, buy family health insurance, or secure address certificates.
In their appeal, the couple also claimed that “Marriage is a bunch of rights and not merely a relation. They are strangers before the law without marriage. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right of a person of his or her choice to marry, and it extends to same-sex couples with full force, as do opposite-sex couples.