Showing posts with label Court News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court News. Show all posts

Saturday, August 15, 2026

CJI, Nalsar students have one query for BCI: ‘Who are you?’ It Is Between Me And Them, Says Surya Kant

CJI, Nalsar students have one query for BCI: ‘Who are you?’ It Is Between Me And Them, Says Surya Kant 

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 15.08.2026

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Friday castigated Bar Council of India (BCI) for threatening to deny licence to practice to Hyderabad-based NALSAR university students who opposed CJI Surya Kant as their convocation chief guest, shielded them against coercive action and offered the law graduates a start as legal aid counsel in SC. 



Taking cognizance of the controversy created late last evening by BCI through an unprecedented letter which had to be hastily retracted, a three-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant said, “This is absolutely uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with it. The students might have written a letter to me. It is a dialogue between me and students. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily create an issue? This action is totally uncalled for.” Senior advocate K Parameshwar sought SC’s urgent intervention in quashing the illegal and arbitrary action of the BCI in seeking to coerce VC of NALSAR University, one of the top law schools, to conduct an investigation and identify students who had opposed CJI’s participation in the convocation as chief guest and issuing the now-withdrawn threat that those identified would be denied registration for licence to practice by all state bar councils.

Can BCI halt enrolment of an entire graduating batch?



Can BCI halt enrolment of an entire graduating batch?

Manan Kumar Mishra

Rizmi Lia M.

Chennai. 15.08.2026

On Thursday, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, in a letter, directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 batch graduate of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) until further orders.

The direction came amid an inquiry into a campaign by some students opposing Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in the NALSAR’s convocation. The BCI chairman sought a factual report from the NALSAR identifying those who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign.

Hours later, the BCI Council modified the direction and said all NALSAR graduates of the 2026 batch could enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.

This raises questions about the statutory powers of the BCI, the authority of its chairman and whether an entire graduating batch can be subjected to an enrolment restriction over the alleged conduct of some students.

What powers does the BCI have over State Bar Councils?

The Advocates Act, 1961, gives the BCI general supervision and control over State Bar Councils under Section 7(1)(g). Section 48B further permits the BCI, in exercise of this power, to give directions to State Bar Councils or any committee thereof as may appear to it to be necessary. Rule 15 of the BCI Rules provides that, subject to resolutions of the BCI, the chairman exercises general control and supervision over the affairs of the BCI. Rule 18 allows the chairman to pass interim orders in revisional and other matters arising from the BCI’s supervisory jurisdiction.

“The blanket direction stopping the entire 2026 NALSAR batch from enrolling has no statutory basis. Enrolment is primarily the statutory function of the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, and there appears to be no specific provision empowering the BCI chairman, acting individually, to suspend the enrolment of an entire batch,” said advocate Manoj Kumar N., a member of the BCI and Bar Council of Kerala.

What does the law say about enrolment?

Section 6(1)(a) entrusts State Bar Councils with admitting persons as advocates on their rolls. Section 24 sets out qualifications for enrolment, while Section 24A provides for certain disqualifications. Sections 25 and 26 deal with the authority and procedure for admission.

“No blanket restrictions can be imposed by the BCI. Every application has to be dealt with independently and if they meet the statutory requirements, they are entitled to be enrolled,” said advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, member of the Bar Council of Kerala.

Mr. Kumar said the BCI may inquire into individual conduct, but collective punishment cannot ordinarily be imposed on an entire batch for the alleged acts of a few. Pre-enrolment conduct, he said, may become relevant when it attracts a statutory disqualification or affects eligibility but mere expression of an opinion or peaceful protest cannot by itself justify denial of enrolment.

What have courts said?

In Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a BCI rule barring persons above 45 from enrolment. It held that the BCI could not use its rule-making power under Section 49 to create an additional disqualification not provided for by the Advocates Act.

The court held that substantive questions of enrolment fall within the domain of State Bar Councils, observing that it was “within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils” to admit persons to their rolls or remove their names.

What happens now?

The BCI subsequently withdrew the blanket restriction and allowed the NALSAR’s 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice. “With the blanket restriction now withdrawn, NALSAR’s 2026 graduates are presently entitled to seek enrolment in the ordinary course,” Mr. Kumar said. He added that any disqualification would have to be based on the Advocates Act and the rules governing enrolment.

Friday, August 14, 2026

Short On Attendance, Full Degree: BCI Opens Door To Legal Practice

Short On Attendance, Full Degree: BCI Opens Door To Legal Practice 

Offers Relaxation For 2025-26 Batch Of Law Grads Covered By SC’s Order

Sugandha.Jha1@timesofindia.com 

New Delhi: A cohort of law graduates across the country from the 2025-26 academic session, caught in an attendance limbo that prevented them from becoming advocates despite having a law degree in hand, can now cross the hurdle, as Bar Council of India (BCI) has created an alternative route for them to complete their enrolment as advocates. 





So far, in order to enrol, the graduates were required to submit an attendance-cum-character certificate. But having been allowed to complete their courses as a one-time measure despite falling short of the prescribed attendance, the students could not be issued certificates by their colleges stating they had fulfilled the attendance requirement. In effect, even though the students had a law degree, they lacked the document needed to enter the profession. This left many educational institutes in a peculiar bind: issuing a certificate showing the required attendance would mean certifying something that was not true. 

Following representations, including from Delhi University’s Law Centre-I Students’ Union, BCI issued a notice on Aug 12 directing all universities imparting law education and state bar councils to issue alternative attendance-cum-character certificates to the affected students without modifying their actual attendance records. 

“Historical attendance records shall not be altered, rewritten or deemed regular,” the notice stated. The certificate will only certify that the student falls within the protected category, as per Supreme Court’s order, and has lawfully completed the course. The alternative certification is intended only “to identify the candidate as falling within the protected class and to confirm lawful completion of the recognised LLB programme,” it read. 

The issue stems from Delhi High Court’s Nov 3, 2025 judgment in the Sushant Rohilla case, which directed that students should not be stopped from taking examinations or progressing solely because of attendance shortage. SC subsequently stayed the relevant direction prospectively on May 26, 2026 and, on July 21, granted one-time protection to students whose academic sessions were underway when the HC judgment was delivered. This meant that students who had fallen short of attendance during this period were allowed to appear for and complete their examinations, but after obtaining their degrees, these students faced a fresh hurdle as they could not produce the mandatory attendance certificate required for enrolment as advocates. BCI said the one-time protection “cannot reasonably be divided into two inconsistent stages” — where the attendance shortage is disregarded for completion of the law degree but revived immediately thereafter to deny entry into the profession. 

It said state bar councils may process applications of eligible candidates “without insisting upon an attendance certificate certifying the ordinarily prescribed percentage of attendance”, where the deficiency relates to the protected academic session. The arrangement is strictly one-time and will apply uniformly to similarly situated candidates across India. It will not constitute a relaxation of attendance requirements for future batches, BCI’s notice stated.

Monday, August 10, 2026

Can’t alter patta sans valid title, officials duty bound to rectify anomalies, says Madras HC

 Can’t alter patta sans valid title, officials duty bound to rectify anomalies, says Madras HC

10.08.2026

The petitioner contended that his father inherited 1.83 acres of land in Kannamangalam village by a partition deed in 1971. Since then, the property has been in the possession and enjoyment of his father.


Madras High Court (Photo | Express)

Updated on:
07 Aug 2026, 8:52 am

CHENNAI: When a patta is altered or mutated based on an error, misrepresentation, or without a valid source of title, the revenue official is duty bound, under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, to rectify the anomaly and restore the entries to their original undisputed position, said the Madras High Court.

The observation was made by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy while issuing orders on a petition filed by S Vasudevan of Vellore to remove the names of three of his relatives from the patta for his inherited land since such names were entered without valid title rights.

The petitioner contended that his father inherited 1.83 acres of land in Kannamangalam village by a partition deed in 1971. Since then, the property has been in the possession and enjoyment of his father. The property was settled to him and his siblings, and he later settled his share to his children by a deed in 2012.

When he came to know that his relatives K Gunasekaran, K Rajan and K Kannan, of Kannamangalam village in Arni taluk, obtained patta without a valid title over the property in 2018, he approached the Arni tahsildar for removing their names from the patta. The tahsildar disposed of his representation by asking him to approach the civil court. Aggrieved over this, he approached the high court.

Referring to the claim of these three people that they inherited the land in question through an oral partition deed, the judge said the parties claiming a right outside the registered deed must approach the civil court to prove their title.

He ordered cancellation of the patta issued to the three and to restore the original patta in the name of the petitioner. However, the aggrieved are free to seek remedy before the civil court, the order added.

Friday, August 7, 2026

Bar Council of India directive: Maharashtra orders inspection of law colleges in 6 weeks


Bar Council of India directive: Maharashtra orders inspection of law colleges in 6 weeks

Aug 5, 2026, 11.22 PM IST

Mumbai: State govt has directed all public universities to carry out an immediate and in-depth physical inspection of every law college affiliated to them and submit a detailed report to Bar Council of India (BCI) within six weeks. The state’s directive follows BCI’s order which took serious cognisance of Supreme Court’s oral observations while hearing a petition regarding the deteriorating quality of legal education in the country. The apex court observed that the legal education centres were operating with inadequate facilities and without meeting the prescribed standards.

In a letter to the universities, BCI mentioned that the SC observations “underscore the immediate need for every authority in the statutory and academic chain to discharge its own continuing responsibility with complete seriousness”. Mentioning that the universities’ responsibilities do not end with the initial grant of affiliation and that they should ensure that colleges do not merely run on the strength of paper compliance, it has sought a report on every affiliated college within six weeks.

Universities have been directed to constitute one or more competent inspection teams to carry out immediate physical inspection of law colleges. The teams have been tasked with verifying the availability of faculty members, adequate classrooms, libraries, reading rooms, journals, law reports, electronic databases, land and building infrastructure, fire and safety compliance, sanitation facilities, legal aid clinics, and other essential requirements. They have also been instructed to notify BCI of any colleges found to have made false declarations, fabricated faculty records, submitted misleading photographs, shifted their premises without approval, or admitted students in excess of the permitted intake.

BCI has directed the universities to submit a consolidated report by classifying institutions as fully compliant, deficient but capable of immediate correction without affecting academic standards and seriously deficient requiring suspension, non-renewal or withdrawal of affiliation.

Prior to this, state govt and Mumbai University had initiated separate action against colleges that failed to comply with the prescribed norms. While the state took action against 103 colleges that did not have BCI recognition, the university reduced the intake capacity of 50 colleges by up to 50% and imposed fines of up to Rs 10 lakh for failing to appoint approved teachers.

Tuesday, August 4, 2026

Long hours hurting resident docs’ mental health, NMC tells SC


Long hours hurting resident docs’ mental health, NMC tells SC

TNN | Aug 2, 2026, 05.17 AM IST


NEW DELHI: Long and crushing working hours have become a serious challenge for resident doctors, causing them psychological distress and mental health problems. Flagging the issue in an affidavit before Supreme Court, National Medical Commission (NMC) has stressed that reasonable working hours and time for rest are a must for their wellbeing and proper functioning, as well as proper patient care. It, however, expressed its inability to ensure the same, saying the matter falls within the domain of central and state health authorities.

In the affidavit filed in response to a PIL by a group of doctors seeking healthy working conditions, the commission placed the findings of its task force, which had projected a grim picture of what doctors have to endure.

“The demanding schedules, including long and multiple 24-hour duties (sometimes 3-5 consecutive duties), were significant stressors for most post graduate doctors. These extended hours without adequate rest led to physical and mental exhaustion, negatively impacting their performance and health,” commission said, referring to the report.

Doctors’ organisation ‘United Doctors Front’ had approached the court demanding healthy working conditions, pointing out that cases of doctors’ suicides are on the rise and claiming that 150 such cases have been reported in five years.

Retired Employee Can't Claim Pay Arrears Beyond 3 Years, But Entitled To Notional Pay Fixation For Pension:

Retired Employee Can't Claim Pay Arrears Beyond 3 Years, But Entitled To Notional Pay Fixation For Pension: 

MP High Court Jayanti Pahwa 

3 Aug 2026 5:45 PM 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a retired employee cannot claim monetary arrears beyond the preceding three years, and in the case of a retired employee, the doctrine of recurring cause of action cannot be invoked to claim past salary benefits indefinitely. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 309] 

The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed that such an employee would be at best entitled to notional pay fixation for the purposes of recalculating pensionary benefits. 

Also Read - Punishment Of Dismissal From Service Can Be Imposed After Retirement If Departmental Enquiry Began Before Superannuation: 

MP High Court "From a bare reading of the provision of law, it is clear that an employee is entitled to seek monetary benefits only for the preceding three years and not beyond that. The analogy of a recurring cause of action will come into play only when the petitioner is to be benefited by the grant of such monetary benefits in present and future. 

Since the petitioner has already retired, he is not entitled to arrears on the basis of the pay scale that has accrued to him on the basis of identical matters. At the most, the petitioner can be granted the benefit of notional fixation for the purpose of pensionary benefits". 

Also Read - LiveLaw Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: July 27 to August 2, 2026 

The petitioner was appointed as Timekeeper in the Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment under the Water Resources Department and rendered service of 40 years before retiring on August 31, 2013. During his service, he was granted the applicable pay scales. Subsequently, the High Court in AL Thakur v State of Madhya Pradesh [Writ Petition No.16054/2003] had directed the State to extend the higher revised pay scales to similarly situated employees. The respondents implemented that judgment in respect of several eligible employees. 

MP High Court Claiming parity with those employees, the petitioner sought the same benefit. However, his claim was rejected by the authorities. The petitioner then approached the High Court by order of March 6, 2017, directing the respondents to examine his claim and grant benefit if his case was fully covered by AL Thakur. When no decision was taken despite the Court's order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. The contempt petition was eventually disposed of after the State informed the Court that the earlier order was complied with. 

 Since his grievance remained unresolved, the petitioner again approached the High Court through a writ petition pursuant to which the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order. Thereafter, by order of March 19, 2019, the respondents once again rejected his claim for parity with similarly situated employees. Challenging this order, the petitioner contended that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Court's order in AL Thakur. The counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had filed the petition seeking monetary benefits in 2019 after five years of retirement on August 31, 2013. Referring to the case of State of Orissa v Mamata Mohanty [2011 (3) SCC 436], the court noted that people cannot seek advantage after sitting on the fence while the matter is being pursued before the courts, and after receiving a favourable order, approach the court seeking similar benefits. The bench also relied on Article 7 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribed that the period of limitation for recovery of money or salary is three years from the date when it became due. 

However, the court also noted that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the bench directed, "Therefore, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure-P/5) is hereby quashed. Insofar as the arrears of the monetary benefits of the pay scale, which could have been granted or were denied during the petitioner's service prior to his retirement, are concerned, the petitioner shall be entitled only to notional fixation for the purpose of pension". Case Title: Ashok Kumar Saxena v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-14178-2019 Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 309 For Petitioner: Advocate Rahul Patel For State: Advocate Shraddha Tiwari

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-retired-employee-cannot-seek-arrears-beyond-the-period-of-three-years-limitation-act-544126

Monday, July 6, 2026

HC asks Ishari K. Ganesh to produce order closing bribery case against him, ex-Minister


HC asks Ishari K. Ganesh to produce order closing bribery case against him, ex-Minister

The issue relates to a 2022 suo motu First Information Report of the DVAC regarding the corruption in issuing ‘essentiality certificate’ to Vels Medical College, which was under construction then. It also accused former Minister C. Vijayabaskar of inducing an inspection team to submit a false report

The court was also told that the DVAC had recommended only departmental action against the four government doctors who were part of the inspection team.

Mohamed Imranullah S.

CHENNAI. 06.07.2026




The Madras High Court has granted a final opportunity, till July 13, to educationist, film producer and actor Ishari K. Ganesh to produce an order passed either by the State government or the Vigilance Commission in 2024 accepting the decision of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to close a corruption case registered against him and former AIADMK Minister C. Vijayabaskar (now in the TVK) in 2022.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan made it clear that Mr. Ganesh should produce within a week either the executive order accepting the DVAC’s closure report or a judicial order quashing the 2022 First Information Report (FIR) registered against him, failing which his present plea to quash an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) shall be dismissed.

P. Sidharthan, Special Public Prosecutor for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), brought it to the notice of the court that the DVAC had registered the FIR against Dr. Vijayabaskar; Mr. Ganesh; the Dean of Vels Medical College and Hospital in Tiruvallur district, K. Srinivasaraja; and four government doctors, R. Balajinathan, T.M. Manohar, J. Sujatha, and J.A. Vasanthakumar, on September 12, 2022.

The FIR was booked suo motu on the basis of intelligence collected by the DVAC that Mr. Ganesh of Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), a deemed-to-be university, had in 2020 allegedly bribed the then Health Minister, Dr. Vijayabaskar, to obtain ‘essentiality certificate’ for the newly constructed Vels Medical College so that it could begin admitting 150 students to the MBBS course.

Under the Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S Admissions Regulations, 2020, the ‘essentiality certificate’ could be issued only if a private hospital had been in existence for a minimum of two years and was capable of being developed into a teaching hospital with a fully functional capacity of 300 beds. However, Vels Medical College was issued an ‘essentiality certificate’ even when its buildings were under construction, the FIR read.

It also accused Dr. Vijayabaskar of having induced the inspection team, comprising four doctors from the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, to submit a false report. “The field verification report of the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Tiruvallur, dated June 11, 2020, for building approval clearly proves that the buildings were under construction during the said period,” the FIR added.

However, when one of the accused, Dr. Balajinathan, filed a petition in the High Court in 2025 to quash the FIR only with respect to the charges levelled against him, the DVAC filed a counter-affidavit stating that it had closed the case against Dr. Vijayabaskar, Mr. Ganesh and Dr. Srinivasaraja since no incriminating evidence could be collected against the three individuals during the course of investigation.

DVAC report

The counter-affidavit also stated that the Vigilance Commission had accepted the report submitted by the DVAC to drop action against all the accused and forwarded it to the Public Department for passing orders. Further, the Vigilance Commission itself had issued an order on June 25, 2024, dropping action against Mr. Ganesh and Dr. Srinivasaraja since they were private individuals and not public servants.

The court was also told that the DVAC had recommended only departmental action against the four government doctors for the alleged lapses on their part during the inspection of the medical college. After recording the submissions, Justice Shamim Ahmed had on January 30, 2025 quashed all further proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the FIR against Dr. Balajinathan.

Relying upon that order, Mr. Ganesh had filed the present writ petition for quashing the ECIR registered against him by the ED, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002, on March 23, 2023. The ECIR had been booked based on the FIR registered by the DVAC under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the FIR had been closed, the ECIR should also be declared illegal, he contended.

However, when the Chief Justice’s Bench insisted upon production of either an executive order or a judicial order on the closure of the predicate offence, the petitioner had been seeking time periodically since March 18, 2026. Hence, the judges on Friday granted him a final opportunity and warned that his plea to quash the ECIR would be dismissed if no such order was produced by July 13.

Sunday, July 5, 2026

State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court


State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court


July 5, 2026, 01.02 AM IST

Ahmedabad: 05.07.2026

The Gujarat HighCourt has quashed a state govt order cancelling an appointment of a teacher 33 years after he was given the job and some 17 years after his death, and stopping the pension being given to his widow.
In this case, Harshad Bhavsar, along with five others, was appointed as a teacher in its school by Sugyan Education Trust in 1988. After ascertaining he got requisite qualification for the post, his appointment was regularised by the district education officer in 1989. After serving for 16 years, Bhavsar died in 2004. The education department began paying family pension to Bhavsar’s widow, Manorama.

In 2021, the director of schools cancelled the appointment of six teachers and a librarian of the school, including that of Bhavsar, withdrew grant benefits, cancelled employee numbers and stopped salary payments under the Direct Salary Scheme.

The govt action was initiated following a complaint made in 2015 by the husband of then school principal, alleging that the appointments had been made in violation of recruitment rules. The govt cancelled the appointments on the grounds that they were based on forged documents, made without obtaining a no-objection certificate, without publishing advertisements and without seeking names from the employment exchange, causing a financial loss of over Rs 6 crore to the exchequer.

The school trust and the affected employees, including Bhavsar’s widow, challenged the order before HC in 2021. A single-judge bench quashed the govt’s s decision, ruling that appointments could not be cancelled after more than three decades.

However, the state govt appealed appealed against the order regarding the revocation of Bhavsar’s appointment.

Dismissing the appeal, a division bench of N S Sanjay Gowda and Justice J L Odedra said, “If an appointment was made in the year 1988, was regularised in 1989, the same cannot be subjected to a challenge or could be doubted by the state nearly 33 years after the appointment was made.”

The bench further said, “The state, after granting a family pension to the widow of the employee, is now doubting the very appointment itself, which its own officials had regularised. The learned single judge, in our view, has rightly quashed the order of cancellation and held that the state could not exercise its powers to cancel the appointment at such a belated stage.”

Thursday, June 25, 2026

We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees


We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees

Court upholds Rajasthan HC order, refuses directions on fee regulation despite concerns over affordability for EWS candidates.


Petitioner argued annual fees of up to ₹25 lakh undermine EWS reservation benefits; court says issue falls within regulators’ domain.(File Photo | ANI)



Updated on:
25 Jun 2026, 7:56 am


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the fee structure of the private medical colleges in Rajasthan, observing that “we need doctors in this country” while dismissing a petition that called the charges exorbitant.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi heard a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Rajasthan High Court order. The HC had earlier rejected a plea by a medical aspirant claiming annual tuition fees in private colleges range from `18.90 lakh to `25 lakh, which, he said, was inconsistent with the `8 lakh income cap for EWS reservation.

“We need doctors in this country,” said the top court while refusing to entertain a plea which alleged that the fee structure in private medical colleges in Rajasthan was exorbitant.

The counsel argued that high fees made MBBS unaffordable for EWS candidates despite quotas and urged the court to direct the state and Centre to cap fees at affordable levels.

The bench, however, declined to step in and refused to pass any order on the plea. “Medical education requires infrastructure, faculty, and equipment. Fee fixation is a policy decision for regulators,” it said while dismissing the plea.

Noting that fee regulation falls within the domain of the state authorities and bodies like the Medical Council, the SC clarified that judicial interference is warranted only if there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness, which was not shown here in this present case. “One person cannot say that it is exorbitant in private institutions and make it on par with government institutions,” the bench observed.

The bench observed that one has the option to avail a scholarship. “We need doctors in this country,” it said. “We don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court. The special leave petition is dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open,” the bench said.

With this, the SC upheld the High Court’s order. No directions were issued to the Centre, Rajasthan government, or MCI/NMC on fee caps.

The petitioner is a general category candidate, who possesses an EWS certificate. He felt aggrieved that the counseling board allocated him a seat in a private college despite he giving preference for 73 colleges.

He argued that EWS students were charged the same fee as other general category students, thus making medical education unaffordable to the EWS students. He also relied on a National Medical Commission notice, which stated that 50 per cent of seats in private colleges should be at par with government colleges.

EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee

EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee

 Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 25.06.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges can not be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education. 

The bench while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly ₹19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted that the private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are selffinancing. 




“The annual tuition fee cannot be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In the self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas the govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it”, said Justice Nagarathna. 

“The private colleges are also contributing in the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer. If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, the courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees”, she said. 

The petitioner whose parents have an annual income of less than ₹8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said that he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and that ₹19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means. His counsel said, “Non implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation by providing only 12 EWS seats in the college having 150 seats diluting the constitutional mandate and prejudicing the Petitioner who was given admission in unreserved category despite having validly applied in EWS category.

Saturday, June 13, 2026

Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC

Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC

The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal from service should be imposed only in cases of grave misconduct, stressing its severe impact on employees and their families. 

The court set aside a woman's dismissal as disproportionate and directed authorities to consider a lesser penalty

BY PTI PUBLISHED DATE - 11 JUNE 2026, 08:52 PM

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said a disciplinary authority must be very careful before imposing the severest form of punishment of dismissal from service as it has a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on their dependant family members.

The apex court said dismissal from service must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate.

Powered By VidCrunch

The observations came from a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh which delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a woman, who was employed with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and was dismissed from service.

“Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the misconduct is of such gravity that continuance of the employee would be wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional functioning,” the bench said.

The top court said cases involving corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing substantial loss to the employer or conduct showing complete unfitness for continued service stand on a different footing.

It observed where the misconduct does not involve corruption, moral turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss to the employer, and where there is long service without much blemish, the disciplinary authority must carefully examine whether any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice.

Dealing with the case, it said, “With respect to the punishment of dismissal which we consider wholly disproportionate to the charges proved, the competent authority shall consider any punishment other than the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service, after considering the appellant’s long service, past record, age, nature of misconduct, absence or presence of financial loss, and other relevant circumstances”.

The apex court set aside the dismissal order of July 2017 as “wholly disproportionate”, while leaving the finding of misconduct undisturbed.

It noted that the appellant had joined the service in April 1985 and in September 2006, she was placed under suspension pending enquiry.

It further noted that the suspension order alleged acts of indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience of superior officers, tampering with official documents and negligence.

The bench said period of suspension continued for nearly 11 years and the authority passed the order in July 2017 dismissing her from service.

The top court was dealing with her appeal challenging an April 2024 verdict of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench which had upheld the order of dismissal.

“Dismissal from service is the severest form of penalty which can be inflicted on a delinquent employee in service jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of employer and employee to an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the employee of the incidents of past service, including retiral benefits,” the bench said.

It said dismissal from service does not lead merely to the loss of existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members.

“Thus, it will have a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on all those who are dependant on the employee,” the bench said.

“Because of the severity of its impact not only on the employee but also to his dependents, the disciplinary authority must be very careful in seeking to impose the severest form of punishment of dismissal,” it said.

The bench said it was not minimizing the importance of discipline in an office establishment. It said in this case, the allegations substantially appear to arise out of internal office functioning and service-related conflict and did not play out in the public domain.

While partly allowing the appeal, the bench also held that imposition of the second punishment of treating the suspension undergone as punishment was not permissible.

Besides other directions, it said the competent authority shall decide the service and monetary consequences of the suspension period in accordance with the regulations, including payment of subsistence allowance in terms of the court’s observations.

The bench said the authority shall within four weeks from the date of receipt of its judgment issue a proper show-cause notice to the appellant as regards the penalty proposed to be imposed other than dismissal, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct.

It directed the authority to pass a reasoned order on penalty within eight weeks. The bench noted that since the appellant has already crossed the age of superannuation, no direction for reinstatement can be issued at this stage.

“The monetary and retiral consequences, if any, shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the competent authority in terms of this judgment and the applicable regulations,” it said.

HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info

HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info

 TIMES NEWS NETWORK 13.06.2026

Bengaluru : The Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information merely for advancing a private claim, the high court has ruled. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation in a recent judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Bengaluru resident S Savithramma. 

She moved Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for details of the assets and liabilities of SP Jayapal, who worked as deputy controller at the central KSRTC office during 1990-2002, saying he fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her, and she required the documents for pending civil suits. 



On May 6, 2025, KIC rejected her application, citing the information sought by her fell under personal category and could not be disclosed as it was exempted under RTI Act.

 Challenging the order, Savithramma approached high court, arguing that Jayapal is a public servant and, therefore, any immovable property acquired by him, together with the corresponding disclosure of assets and liabilities, should be revealed. 

Justice Govindaraj, however, rejected the argument. “The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information. Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority must be satisfied that public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh privacy interests of the individual. No such circumstances have been shown in the case,” he noted.

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Can bar overqualified person from job: SC

Can bar overqualified person from job: SC 

‘Rationale Both Reasonable And Equitable’

AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com  04.06.2026

New Delhi : Sometimes over qualification becomes a disqualification. At a time when highly qualified people, including PhD holders, are competing for class IV govt jobs, the Supreme Court has said a person could be disqualified for a job if he holds a qualification beyond the maximum prescribed qualification. Noting that an employer’s need to have the right people at the right place does not always mean those higher qualified, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said there is nothing wrong in govt’s decision putting a cap on the qualification for a post and disqualifying those holding higher degrees. 






“The rationale behind prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and equitable, namely, to provide employment opportunities to persons who, owing to circumstances of life, could not pursue higher education. The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection. 

Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity,” the bench said. 

 It passed the order while upholding termination of job of a bank employee on the ground that he was graduate at the time of joining while the job specification stipulated the candidate should possess the qualification of passing 8th standard, but should not have passed 12th standard or acquired qualification. “..though we may have sympathy for the respondent, the conduct attributed to him and the settled position of law leave us with no option but to interfere with the impugned judgment.”

NEWS DIGEST

NEWS DIGEST 

04.06.2026

SC : Can bar overqualified person from job Sometimes overqualification becomes a disqualification. At a time when highly qualified people, including PhD holders, are competing for class IV govt jobs, the Supreme Court has said a person could be disqualified for a job if he holds a qualification beyond the maximum prescribed qualification.

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Dependent ‘married daughter’ entitled to compassionate employment: Court

Dependent ‘married daughter’ entitled to compassionate employment: Court

 Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 03.06.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a dependent married daughter could not be excluded from the definition of ‘family’ and would be entitled to seek employment or allotment of a ration shop if any of her parents died in harness. 

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe faulted a provision of a UP govt order relating to allotment of PDS shop on dependent quota for excluding married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ and said it breached the doctrine of equality embedded in the constitutional framework. “Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of ‘family’ cannot be sustained,” it said.




 Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe said marital status bore no rational nexus to the status of dependency and the object of compassionate appointment or allotment of ration shops, which is to enable the family to overcome financial hardship caused due to death of the bread earner. 

The bench said marriage neither extinguished the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnished avalid basis to presume absence of dependency. The UP govt order included “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” as dependents. The SC said it would mean to include depe ndent married daughters. “Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support or remain dependent upon their parents,” it said and asked why a married daughter was excluded from the definition of ‘family’ when married sons were not.

Friday, May 22, 2026

'Nothing short of fraud': SC pulls up Indian Nursing Council rule allowing nursing colleges 30km away from ICU hospitals



'Nothing short of fraud': SC pulls up Indian Nursing Council rule allowing nursing colleges 30km away from ICU hospitals 

Written By : Barsha Misra

Published On 21 May 2026 5:47 PM | Updated On 21 May 2026 5:47 PM Supreme Court of India

New Delhi: Expressing shock over a reported Indian Nursing Council (INC) norm allowing nursing colleges to be located up to 30 kilometres away from hospitals having Intensive Care Unit (ICU) facilities, the Supreme Court recently questioned how nursing students could be expected to receive meaningful hands-on training under such an arrangement.

Taking note of the fact that the nursing curriculum requires students to undertake daily ICU visits as part of the practical training, the Apex Court bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan found it shocking that nursing institutes could get permission to operate despite being located so far away from hospitals equipped with functioning ICUs.

Expressing its shock, the top court bench noted that nursing students must work on real patients as part of their training and cannot be entrusted with responsibility without actual clinical exposure.

When the existing guidelines were brought to the Court's notice, the bench observed that such an arrangement of allowing affiliated hospitals to be located within a 30-kilometre radius was wholly impractical.

During the hearing, Justice Amaullah orally remarked that requiring students to travel such distances on a daily basis was "atrocious" and "shocking to the conscience of this Court."

Live Law has reported that while considering the issue, Justice Amanullah asked, "Every day the student would have to travel 40-50 km to a hospital? How is this guideline there? Nothing short of fraud on the system. 30 Kms every day a student will go for the course to hospital? This is atrocious and shocking to the conscience of this Court. How did you allow the provision to be there?"

In response, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that she would seek instructions on whether such a provision indeed existed and whether the competent authority could revisit it.

At this outset, the bench clarified that ideally, nursing colleges should be attached to ICU hospitals and if not, such hospitals should be within a one-kilometre radius.

The bench has also issued directions to the Indian Nursing Council for submitted a report on around 800 such colleges, specifically mentioning their distances from hospitals with ICU facilities.

"The Indian Nursing Council, on query, submitted that the basic course incorporates a daily visit to an ICU as per the course curriculum for hands-on training. At this juncture, the Court expressed its surprise as to how such institutions are approved or given permission to start the institute, where clearly the said institution is miles apart from the hospital having a proper and regular ICU. The Court was informed that, as per guidelines, the said hospital can be at a distance of 30 kms. The Court is shocked, and clearly it can't be believed that students of nursing can be visiting every day, which is also imperative for the reason that at the end of the course, they have to practically work on a real patient. Without real experience, they can't be entrusted with responsibility. ASG submitted that she would take instructions as to whether such a provision is there and if it's there, the authority may have a relook," the Apex Court ordered. The top court made these observations during the hearing of a long-pending matter that concerned healthcare standards. After considering the recommendations prepared by a panel appointed by the Court and taking note of the suggestions from healthcare experts, the Apex Court issued a series of nationwide directions for strengthening the critical care infrastructure and standardising ICU facilities across India.

Apex Court's Directions on Improving ICU Standards:

During the hearing, the bench approved the framework titled "Guidelines for Organisation and Delivery of Intensive Care Services". Under this framework, ICUs have been classified into Level I, Level II and Level III categories.

The Court endorsed the classification of the ICUs into Level I, Level II, and Level III categories, observing that the proposed standards were well considered and required strict enforcement.

Further, it also emphasised the urgency of strengthening critical care infrastructure, noting that the healthcare system in the country is facing immense pressure due to the growing population of the country. This, according to the bench, is resulting in a shortage of quality emergency care facilities.

The Apex Court observed that the healthcare infrastructure of the country was struggling to keep pace with the rising demand and emphasised that access to critical care directly implicates the fundamental right to life.

Underlining that the State is obligated to ensure access to such care to protect the citizens' right to life, the bench observed, "When it comes to a person in a critical health condition, there is a real dearth and shortage of facilities to ensure that the least patient is made stable so as to give him or her further corrective measures."

The bench has directed the States and Union Territories to complete a gap assessment exercise within two months. Further, the States have also been asked to begin work on implementing minimum standards for Level I ICUs in healthcare institutions, focusing on ensuring that critically ill patients receive stabilising care in time-sensitive emergencies.

Taking note of the financial constraints in expanding the healthcare infrastructure, the Supreme Court bench recommended the States to explore funding through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, NGO support and public donations. It also cautioned that such funds must be ring-fenced and used only for ICU-related infrastructure.

Further, the States have been directed by the top court bench to assess the feasibility of maintaining at least five fully-equipped ambulances, including ventilator support and trained personnel, through donated funding for the transportation of the critically ill patients within districts.

Apart from these, in another major direction, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to formulate a nationwide GPS-based system that would map the hospitals and indicate the availability of ICU along with capacity, enable faster referrals and coordinated transfers between institutions. The top court bench has also endorsed tele-ICU and tele-consultation systems and called for a digital communication grid linking hospitals.

The matter has been listed for further hearing in August, when the court-appointed committee is expected to place its final recommendations.

Medical Dialogues had previously reported that earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India had directed all the States and Union Territories to prepare a 'realistic and practical' action plan to strengthen Intensive Care Unit (ICU) facilities and implement the guidelines necessary as a minimum standard, while asking the Centre to circulate standardised ICU guidelines as an advisory.

While hearing about healthcare services, including guidelines for the treatment of patients in the ICU or critical care unit, the apex court was informed that "Guidelines for Organisation and Delivery of Intensive Care Services", on which there is consensus and which is practical, implementable and necessary as a minimum standard for an ICU, has been prepared.

Monday, May 18, 2026

MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC


MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC 

Written By : Barsha MisraPublished On 16 May 2026 6:00 PM | 

 Updated On 16 May 2026 6:00 PM

Supreme Court of India 

New Delhi: Denying relief to the students shifted from the defunct Sardar Rajas Medical College, Odisha, the Supreme Court recently observed that students transferred to private medical colleges, after the original institution lost recognition, cannot claim the benefit of paying only subsidised government medical college fees.

Accordingly, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the private medical institutes to recover the outstanding dues from the students at the fee rates applicable at Sardar Rajas Medical College and hospital (SRMCH).

"It is also borne out from the record that the transferee colleges had obtained undertakings from the transferred students at the time of issuance of course-completion documents/certificates, wherein the students acknowledged that the issue relating to fee liability was pending consideration before this Court and undertook to abide by the final directions passed herein. Thus, the passed-out students cannot be allowed the benefit of a windfall or a bonanza merely by dint of the interim orders passed by this Court, which was in form of an emergent measure in order to tide over the situation where the students faced imminent risk of losing their entire careers. Now that, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the students have completed the medical courses, it is the right time when they should be asked to make good their outstanding fee obligations," the bench ordered.

Further, it directed that approximately Rs 14 crore that was secured from the Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust, which managed SRMCH, be released to the three private medical colleges that accommodated the transferred students. This amount includes the bank guarantee of Rs 10 crore furnished to the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC), and Rs 2 crore deposited before the Supreme Court, along with accrued interest.

"It is accordingly ordered that the amount of approximately Rs.10 crores covered by the bank guarantee furnished by the Trust with the MCI/NMC, shall be made available for distribution amongst the three transferee colleges in equal proportions. The MCI/NMC shall ensure that the said amount is released and paid to the three colleges in their respective bank accounts within a period of three months from today...The amount of Rs.2 crores deposited by the Trust with the Registry of this Court, along with accrued interest thereupon, shall also be divided into three equal portions and disbursed to the transferee colleges," ordered the top court bench.

Case Details:

The case stemmed from the collapse of the Sardar Rajas Medical College. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that back in 2015, the erstwhile MCI had withdrawn the recognition and affiliation of the medical college after finding serious deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty etc. Following this, the future of the students at the medical college, who were admitted in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic year, was pushed into darkness.

Earlier, to prevent the students from losing an academic year, the Apex Court had ordered their transfer through a State-supervised counselling process. The affected students had been transferred to Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, IMS & SUM Hospital, and Hi-Tech Medical College in Odisha. Among the total of 124 students, who were affected due to the MCI's withdrawal of recognition, a total of 122 students were ultimately relocated to these three private medical institutes.

However, later, approaching the Supreme Court, these medical institutes claimed that despite providing education and stipends to these students for years, they only received nominal government-rate fees under the interim orders passed by the Court. According to the colleges, the government-rate fees were far below the actual fee structure of the private medical colleges.

The colleges also submitted that at the initial stage, they could not raise any protest regarding the shortfall of fees, as the students were transferred to their institutions based on the directions of the Apex Court.

The Court noted that based on the court's order dated 19.04.2016, the Selvam Trust, which used to run the SRMCH, had deposited Rs 2 crore to the Court's registry, which, along with accrued interest, now stands at Rs.3,58,69,331. Further, the Trust had also furnished a sum of approximately Rs 10 crore, with the MCI/NMC by way of bank guarantees as security in connection with regulatory requirements relating to the establishment and functioning of the institution.

Meanwhile, the students submitted that they were admitted to SRMCH through a valid admission process and were subsequently compelled to shift to private medical institutes for no fault of theirs. They submitted that they had already paid fees at Government rates in compliance with the Supreme Court's interim orders and have since completed their medical courses after facing great hardship and uncertainty. Therefore, they urged the Court not to burden them with any additional financial liability at such a belated stage.

The Selvam Trust submitted that the findings regarding the deficiencies in SRMCH were still under challenge before the competent forums. The Trust's counsel also submitted that the Trust was contesting the said findings by raising issues with the MCI/NMC and that the question of its liability could not be conclusively determined in these proceedings without due adjudication of such disputes.

Further, the counsel for the trust urged that the affected students have already derived the benefits of continued education in other recognised medical institutions, which would be either equivalent to or even better than the institution in which they were originally admitted i.e. SRMCH, and therefore, the entire financial burden ought not to be saddled upon the Trust.

Accordingly, the trust argued that no additional liability should be fastened on the Trust without determining its defaults, vis-à-vis the regulatory mechanism.

Meanwhile, the counsel for MCI, now NMC, argued that the fee structure is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. It was submitted that the admission categories ought to be classified on a quota-based system, whereby students admitted under the Government quota would be liable to pay fees at Government rates, whereas those admitted under the management quota would be liable to pay higher fees as applicable to such category.

Supreme Court's Observations:

The Apex Court rejected the argument that the students should continue to benefit from the subsidised arrangement indefinitely.

"This, in our opinion, would amount to unjust enrichment of these transferee students while being conscious of the fact that they had to face a chaotic situation of being transferred to different medical colleges mid-session. However, all interests of these students were duly protected by this Court ensuring that they cleared the medical course without losing a single academic year. Thus, neither the students can be given undue advantage or bonanza nor can the defaulting institution, i.e., the SRMCH/Selvam Trust, be permitted to take benefit of its own follies," it observed. Even though the Court held that the students definitely faced difficult circumstances without any fault of their own, it also observed that they could not continue receiving the benefit of government-rate fees permanently.

"The situation at hand is well defined by the latin maxim Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet i.e., no one should derive a benefit from their own wrong. While the admitted students had undertaken to pay the prescribed fees to SRMCH, it is equally true that, upon payment of such fees, they were entitled to complete their course without any hitch or difficulty. However, what transpired subsequently, as noted in the preceding paragraphs, presents an entirely different picture. Owing to the deficiencies in SRMCH, its recognition was not renewed, resulting in the students being subjected to a very tumultuous and volatile situation, putting their future in grave risk," the bench observed.

While deciding the core question regarding the manner in which the resultant financial liability is to be apportioned between the parties while balancing the equities, the bench noted that since the students were transferred and admitted to these private colleges based on the Court's directions in exceptional circumstances, the primary brunt of liability must be fastened upon the Trust.

Accordingly, it ordered, "We, therefore, direct that the amount of approximately Rs.10 crores furnished by the Selvam Trust by way of bank guarantees with the MCI/NMC, along with the amount of Rs.2 crores deposited before this Court, together with accrued interest thereupon, shall be payable to the three transferee colleges."

Regarding the liability of the students, the bench observed that the students were transferred to the applicant colleges, where they continued their studies and completed the courses, albeit without loss of an academic year save for exceptions. Additionally, these students were paid stipends by transferee colleges as and where applicable.

After perusing the fee structure of the medical colleges, the bench noted, "The fee structure of the transferee colleges is slightly higher but the learned counsel representing the colleges fairly conceded on instructions that they would be satisfied by reimbursement of due fees at the rates being charged by SRMCH. Thus, in aggregate, the total amount payable to the three colleges would work out to approximately Rs.16.2 crores. This amount is significantly lower than the fee ordinarily chargeable by the transferee colleges from their own students at private rates and does not account for the interest which would have accrued in the intervening period. The total amount secured by way of bank guarantees furnished by the Trust, together with the amount deposited before this Court along with accrued interest, would aggregate to approximately Rs.14 crores. Even upon applying the fee standards of SRMCH, the transferee colleges would still face a shortfall in the recovery of their lawful dues."

The court noted that the students who passed out from the transferee colleges have virtually undertaken the full MBBS course by paying the fees at the Government rates, which would be only a pittance of what they would have paid to the SRMCH under normal circumstances.

It also observed that the facts were not clear on the aspect as to the number of students originally admitted in SRMCH under the government quota and those admitted under the private/management quota.

From the record, the court also observed that the transferee colleges had obtained undertakings from the transferred students at the time of issuance of course-completion documents/certificates, wherein the students acknowledged that the issue relating to fee liability was pending consideration before the Supreme Court and undertook to abide by the final directions passed by the court.

Accordingly, it held that the passed-out students cannot be allowed the benefit of a windfall or a bonanza merely by dint of the interim orders passed by the court.

Accordingly, it ordered,

"The present status of these passed out students is not available to the Court. Thus, looking to the piquant situation, we permit the transferee colleges to make representations to the MCI/NMC with details of the exact shortfall of the fee due from each student (applying SRMCH rates) for recovery of their remaining dues, if any. It is expected that, upon such representations being made, the NMC shall provide due redressal to the colleges for recovery of the deficit amount, if any, from these passed out students. Excess amount, if any, received from the students may be utilized to recoup the amount of bank guarantee (Rs. 10 Crores) which we have directed MCI/NMC to pay to the applicant colleges. Furthermore, at the time of evaluation, the MCI/NMC shall take into account and adjust the amount initially paid by these students at the time of admission to SRMCH. We further provide that observations made in this order shall not prejudice the claims/defences, if any, of the Selvam Trust or SRCMH in appropriate proceedings, if any." "For the sake of clarification and in view of the directions issued hereinabove, it is provided that the students who comply with the fee liability determined in terms of the present judgment shall be entitled to forthwith receive such academic and coursecompletion documents, certificates and other consequential records, which are ordinarily issued upon completion of the course and are required by the students, in accordance with the applicable rules/regulations," it added.

T.N. govt. to launch health insurance for the elderly

T.N. govt. to launch health insurance for the elderly The Hindu Bureau CHENNAI. 18.08.2026 Tamil Nadu will launch the ‘Chief Minister’s Elde...