'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.

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.

SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil

SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil 

12.05.2026. TIMES OF INDIA BENGALURU

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with Madras high court’s order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in transformer tenders floated during the tenure of former Tamil Nadu electricity minister V Senthil Balaji between 2021-23. 

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals filed against the HC order and asked the agency to conduct the investigation uninfluenced by the observations of Madras HC. One of the appeals has been filed by Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco). Madras HC had directed a CBI probe on April 29 on a plea filed by NGO Arappor Iyakkam which alleged that 10 tenders issued for the procurement of transformers were manipulated to favour select bidders. TNN

Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC

Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  06.05.2026

Chennai : Engineering degrees obtained from deemed-to-be universities during a period without AICTE approval are not valid, the Madras high court said. Approval is mandatory for technical courses, and benefits based on unapproved degrees cannot be sustained, the court added. 

A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice K Surender passed the order on a review application moved by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd seeking review of an order passed by the court dated June 25, 2025. The issue pertains to pleas moved by three employees of the corporation seeking to include their names in the seniority list of assistant engineers, taking into consideration their BE degree certificates. 

The court allowed the petitions, and an appeal moved by the corporation was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the corporation moved the present review and pointed out that the court failed to notice that recognition/approval of AICTE for technical courses is mandatory and, in the present case, the BE degrees obtained by the employees admittedly were not approved by AICTE during the academic years in which they completed the degree. 

The employees opposed the plea and contended that no such approval is required for degrees obtained through deemed-to-be universities. The university, through communication, admitted the fact that it did not obtain any approval from AICTE to conduct a BE (Mechanical) engineering course from the academic year 2002 onwards till 2017. Recording the submissions, the bench held that, therefore, the degrees obtained by the employees cannot be construed as valid degrees in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Odisha case, which deals with the issue, and allowed the review application

Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC

Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC 

18.04.2026

Cuttack : The Orissa high court observed that high ranking candidates in a recruitment exam cannot be disqualified on the basis of their poor academic records. The HC ruling came on Thursday while it was hearing a batch of 242 petitions challenging the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission’s (OSSSC) Oct 10, 2025 order, that denied candidates a place in the merit list for recruitment to the posts of livestock inspector, forester and forest guard, reports Lalmohan Patnaik . OSSSC had rejected the petitioners’ claim for appointment on grounds that they had adopted unfair means during the written exam. HC noted that the commission had not received report of illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the written exam from any of the 94 centres. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy directed OSSSC to recommend the 242 petitioners for appointment within three weeks. The state govt was to ensure timely appointments.

Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:

Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:

Supreme Court The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement, the Court said.

Supreme Court of India. 18.06.2026

Ritu Yadav Published on: 17 Apr 2026, 8:33 pm

The Supreme Court has ruled that government employees hired on a contractual or ad hoc basis without any public advertisement or interview cannot be made permanent under a State policy [Madan Singh v State of Haryana]

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the ruling on April 16 while striking down two notifications issued by Haryana government in 2014 to regularise services of a certain category of employees who had or were about to complete ten years’ of service.

The Court said that the Haryana government failed to justify why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview, were sought to be regularised.

“The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such a process,” the Bench said.

Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar However, at the same time, the Court acknowledged the practical reality that many of these employees had been working for years.

"A period of almost twelve years has elapsed since the issuance of these two Notifications. It is the specific stand of the State Government that even after excluding the ad hoc employees from Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, who seek benefit of these two Notifications, none of the posts advertised would be aLected. Further, it is informed that such appointees have now gained sufficient experience and are likely to have settled in life with the passage of time," the Court noted.

It therefore invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and allowed the employees to continue in service. However, it directed that they would be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their posts.

In 2018, the High Court in 2018 had struck down a set of Haryana government notifications aimed at regularising Group B, C and D employees. The decision was then challenged before the top court, which ordered a status quo during the pendency of the matter.

In the judgment passed on April 16, the top court modified the High Court ruling. While it struck down two of the notifications issued in July 2014, it upheld the validity of two similar notifications issued in June 2014.

The policies notified in June 2014 were aimed at extending the benefit of an older 1996 regularisation scheme to employees who had been left out earlier, it noted.

The Court found that the criteria prescribed was very much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed for regular recruitment

"The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such posts," it said.

After pronouncing the judgment, Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue may require consideration by a larger Bench.

“We have gone through your suggestions. We had a particular difficulty being a combination of a two-judge bench. It would have created yet another problem of two conflicting two-judge benches. We have kept everything ready. We will ask you to do a repeat performance at a time, perhaps when we get this matter taken up at a three-judge bench, which is necessary, and we are going to do that because we have seen that it cannot continue like this. You know.,” Justice Narasimha said.

The Court placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocates Japneet Kaur, Jhanvi Dubey, Ashok Mathur, Vriti Gujral, M Bikram Dwivedi and Jimut Mohopatra.

Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court

Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has ruled that differential dearness benefit increases for serving employees and pensioners are arbitrary. Inflation impacts both equally, making a 14% DA hike for serving staff and only 11% DR for retirees discriminatory. The court stated that while financial constraints can justify implementation delays, unequal benefit rates violate the right to equality.

Amit Anand ChoudharyTNN

Apr 11, 2026, 3:59 IST

NEW DELHI: Observing that inflationary pressures do not discriminate between a serving employee and a pensioner, hitting the two equally, Supreme Court Friday held that fixing differential rates of enhancement of inflation-linked dearness benefits for the two categories is arbitrary and cannot be allowed. 

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale disapproved of Kerala govt's decision to raise dearness allowance (DA) by 14% for state road transport corporation employees when the dearness relief (DR) for its retired employees was raised by just 11%. "...The Govt Order in question increases the rate of DA by 14% and DR by 11% even though the increase is to serve a common object, which is to mitigate the hardship faced by the serving employees and pensioners on account of inflation.

 Indisputably, inflation hits both serving and retired employees with equal force... Differentiating the two qua the rate of increase of DA and DR, in our view, has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Justice Misra said, accepting the plea of senior advocates V Chitambaresh and Vipin Nair. The state had contended that serving and retired employees belonged to different categories and differential rates for them did not violate the right to equality. Financial reasons alone could justify the same, it said. The bench said, "No doubt a financial crunch might be a guiding factor to defer disbursement of certain benefits or may justify separate dates for implementation of beneficial schemes. 

But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances, as also to increase them ...fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

 AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 14.04.2026

New Delhi : In a classic case of how court proceedings are misused in matrimonial disputes-a woman agreed for a divorce and signed a financial settlement agreement for separation but she not only reneged from the promise after getting a substantial part of the money from her husband, but she also filed a criminal case against him and his family members. 

The Supreme Court on Monday invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and also quashed the domestic violence case, brushing aside her opposition. The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh to her and also quashed all civil and criminal cases lodged by the couple against each other.

Madras HC bins plea on transfer of govt staff after 3 years

Madras HC bins plea on transfer of govt staff after 3 years

Apr 10, 2026, 02.06 AM IST

Chennai: Madras high court on Thursday refused to order transfer of govt employees who have been working in the same place for more than three years. The court observed that while the Election Commission (ECI) is taking action by transferring govt servants, interference by the court is not required.

The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed this, while disposing of a plea moved by Integrated Manapparai Taluk Rainfed and Irrigated Farmers Association.

According to the petitioner, a govt order (GO) was issued in 1994 mandating the transfer of govt employees working in various departments once every three years to ensure transparency in administration and to prevent misuse of power by officials. It further alleged that govt officials working in departments such as agriculture, revenue and police have been continuing in the same postings for more than three years, and as a result, they have been selectively extending govt welfare schemes to preferred individuals.

The association also contended that govt officials must act impartially during elections, but allowing them to continue in the same post for long durations is against election conduct rules and creates a possibility of them acting in favour of the ruling party. Refusing to entertain the plea, the bench observed that transfer of govt employees is a service-related matter and such a relief cannot be sought in a PIL. The court, however, directed the ECI to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict 

TIMES OF INDIA  CHENNAI EDITION 07.04.2026

The convicts include the then inspector S Sridhar, sub-inspectors K Balakrishnan, P Raghu Ganesh, head constables S Murugan and A Samadurai, and four constables—M Muthuraja, S Chelladurai, X Thomas Francis and S Vailmuthu. 

A total fine of over ₹1 crore has been imposed on them. The 10th suspect, the then special sub-inspector Paldurai, who too had been arrested, died of Covid in Aug 2020. 

After signing judgment on Monday, judge Muthukumaran broke the nib of his pen. 

Jeyaraj and Beniks were taken to the Sathankulam police in Tuticorin district in south Tamil Nadu late in the evening of June 19, 2020, on charges of having kept their shop open beyond the deadline during the Covid-19 lockdown. They were brutally assaulted by the policemen at night and were lodged in Kovilpatti sub-jail the next day. 

Beniks died of injuries at the Kovilpatti govt hospital on June 22, 2020, while his father Jeyaraj died on June 23, 2020. Their deaths sent shock waves and triggered public outcry across the state, and Justice P N Prakash of Madras high court took note of the killings and ordered the transfer of probe to the CBI. 

Recalling the HC intervention, judge Muthukumaran said, “ If not for the HC, truth regarding the incident would have been buried along with mortal remains of the duo.” “It was an act of vengeance by the police. Jeyaraj was tortured since there was an altercation with the police and Beniks was tortured since he questioned the illegal detention of his father. 

The act was committed by the policemen with the deliberate intent to instill fear among the public as two traders had lost their lives,” the judge said. “Where there is power, there should be responsibility. The incident was an attack on human rights,” the judge observed and added that custodial death is a social evil. 

The judge observed that this is not the first case of custodial death and it is also not going to be the last case either. “Such incidents are occurring everywhere,” the judge said, referring to the George Floyd incident reported in the US and the recent incident where B Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard, died due to custodial torture in Thiruppuvanam in Sivaganga. 

“Those who should protect the public have misused their power. This was a case of fencing eating the crops,” he said. Earlier, the state govt asserted that custodial deaths could not be tolerated and the Centre stated that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convicts. 

All nine Sathankulam case convicts get death sentence 

Judge: This Is To Prevent More Such Incidents 

Madurai : All nine police personnel arrested in connection with the custodial deaths of P Jeyaraj and his son J Beniks who were tortured in Sathankulam police station in 2020, were sentenced to death on Monday. Mere life sentences would not be sufficient, as the policemen would have no fear and would, instead, get emboldened, said the first additional district and sessions court in Madurai, G Muthukumaran on Monday. 

“It would send a false message to society. The punishment imposed on the police personnel in this case should be stringent one in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future. All the nine convicted police personnel in the case were equally involved in the attack on the father-son duo which resulted in their death,” the judge said. “The justice we got today is justice for all common people,” Jeyaraj’s daughter, J Persis, told reporters. “No family should face the trauma we underwent. We believe judgment in this case will prevent such incidents of custodial deaths in the future.”

OBC quota based on birth, not marriage or migration: HC

OBC quota based on birth, not marriage or migration: HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 02.04.2026

Bhopal : Madhya Pradesh high court has said that OBC reservation benefits cannot be claimed in the state on the basis of a caste certificate issued elsewhere, and that such benefits are determined by birth, not by marriage or change of residence. 

Dismissing a petition, the court upheld the cancellation of a candidate’s candidature during verification.The court also ruled that a woman cannot claim reservation benefits on the basis of her husband’s caste after marriage. The case pertains to Archana Dangi, a native of Jalaun in Uttar Pradesh, who had cleared the Higher Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018. Her candidature was cancelled during document verification as her OBC certificate had been issued in Uttar Pradesh. She argued that the Dangi caste is listed under the OBC category in both Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. 

She also submitted that after marriage she became a resident of Madhya Pradesh and should be eligible for reservation benefits in the state. Opposing the plea, the state govt told the court that caste is determined by birth and not by marriage or change of residence. It also said that a caste certificate issued in another state is not valid for claiming reservation in Madhya Pradesh. 

The court further noted that while a woman may socially be part of her husband’s caste after marriage, reservation benefits are based on social and educational backwardness linked to birth, not marital status

HC: Daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain parents-in-law

 

HC: Daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain parents-in-law

Mar 29, 2026, 22:10 IST

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain her parents-in-law under Section 125 of CrPC (now Section 144 of BNSS), stating that moral obligations do not translate to legal ones without statutory backing.

The court observed that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein. Parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of this provision, Justice Madan Pal Singh said in his recent order.Dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by an elderly couple — Rakesh Kumar and his wife against their daughter-in-law, he observed, "The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included parents-in-law within the ambit of the said provision. 

In other words, it is not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under this provision."An elderly couple had challenged an Aug 2025 order passed by the principal judge, family court, Agra, which rejected their application seeking maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS. The parents submitted that they were old, illiterate, indigent and wholly dependent on their deceased son during his lifetime.They contended that their daughter-in-law, who is employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh police, has sufficient independent income and has also received all service benefits of their deceased son. 

They also contended that the daughter-in-law's moral obligation to maintain her aged parents-in-law should be treated as a legal obligation.The court, however, rejected this contention, noting that there was nothing on record to indicate that the daughter-in-law's police employment was secured on compassionate grounds.The court also clarified that submissions regarding succession to the deceased son's property do not fall for consideration in these maintenance proceedings.

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

 Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com  27.02.2026

Bengaluru : Karnataka HC has ruled that inclusion of the mother’s family name in the birth certificate of a child does not dilute or extinguish the substantive legal rights of any person, including that of the biological father. Granting relief to a nineyear-old girl and her mother, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “The biological and legal relationship between the child and the father, including the child’s rights of inheritance, succession, and maintenance, remains unaltered. The change sought by the mother was merely one of nome-nclature reflecting the real family environment in which the child is being raised.” 

The case arose from a livein relationship between two Nepalese nationals in Bengaluru. Their daughter was born in Feb 2017, and a birth certificate was issued in March 2017. The child’s father later ended the relationship and returned to Nepal. When the mother approached local authorities at Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to delete the father’s name and substitute it with her own, the request was rejected citing Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. She then moved the HC. After examining the statutory provisions, the court held that the registrar had the authority to carry out corrections and the refusal amounted to a failure to exercise statutory power. 

Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the HC directed the issuance of a fresh birth certificate within four weeks. Stressing the “best interest of the child”, the judge noted that children abandoned by a parent were particularly vulnerable.

‘Will divide society’: SC stays new UGC equity regulations

‘Will divide society’: SC stays new UGC equity regulations 

‘Dangerous Impact On Goal Of Castelessness’ 

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 30.01.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court put on hold on Thursday the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, taking serious exception to several of its provisions and saying that these could fuel societal division and have a dangerous impact on the goal of a casteless society. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions and said that while implementation of the 2026 regulations would be on hold till further orders, the 2012 regulations would continue to be in force to address grievances relating to caste-based discrimination against students on campuses of educational institutions.

 “We are sorry to say, the Regulations, prima facie, the language is completely vague, the provisions are capable of being misused, and the language needs to be re-modulated and redesigned,” the bench said and asked for the setting up of an expert panel. The CJI said, “In the country, after 75 years, whatever we have gained to move towards the goal of casteless society, are we enacting a regressive policy?” The justices said that while they were all for regulations for creation of “a free, inclusive and an equitable atmosphere in universities… there are 4-5 serious concerns. If those are not addressed, the regulations will otherwise have sweeping consequences...” 

The CJI flagged another provision in the regulations as problematic, pointing out that it proposed separate hostels based on the caste of students.

Should not go to a stage that has segregated schools: SC 

For God’s sake, please do not do that. In hostels, students from every community live together. There are inter-caste marriages also. We should move towards a casteless society by assimilating students of all regions and (students of) all castes must have equal rights and live harmoniously in universities. We cannot go backwards. There must not be any segregation.” The hearing took place amid agitation by sections of upper-caste students against the regulations for allegedly being discriminatory and exclusionary and for being oblivious to the changed socioeconomic milieu where newly empowered OBCs have also been accused of discriminating against others, including those from upper castes. Significantly, OBCs are not under purview of 2012 regulations, which snap back in action after SC’s order Thursday. 

Leading the arguments for petitioners, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said the regulations presume that only a certain category of students belonging to certain castes face discrimination in universities. They keep general category candidates outside their purview, leaving such students without remedies for discrimination faced by them. Asking Centre and UGC to respond to petitions by March 19, SC said, “We want to examine constitutional validity and legality of 2026 Regulations. We would like Union govt, with concurrence and approval of court, to constitute apanel of experts comprising eminent academicians and scholars who understand our social conditions to study regulations & its possible impacts.”

SC agrees to hear plea against UGC’s new equity regulations

SC agrees to hear plea against UGC’s new equity regulations 

New Delhi : 29.01.2026

Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to list for hearing a plea challenging a recently notified UGC regulation on the grounds that it had adopted a non-inclusionary definition of caste-based discrimination and excluded certain categories from institutional protection. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions of a lawyer seeking urgent hearing of the plea. “There is a possibility of discrimination against the general class. My case is ‘Rahul Dewan and Ors vs Union’,” a lawyer said. The CJI said: “We know what is happening. Make sure defects are cured. We will list it.” The new regulations mandating all higher education institutions to form “equity committees” to look into discrimination complaints and promote equity were notified on Jan 13. University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, mandated that these committees include members of OBC, SC and ST communities, persons with disabilities, and women. The new regulations replace UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which was largely advisory in nature. The plea assailed the regulations on the grounds that castebased discrimination was defined strictly as discrimination against SC, ST and OBC community members. It said that by limiting the scope only to these categories, UGC had effectively denied institutional protection and grievance redress to individuals belonging to the “general” or non-reserved categories, who may also face harassment based on their caste identity. Protests were held in various places, with student groups demanding rollback of the regulations. PTI

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 28.01.2026

Kochi : The Kerala high court has ruled that not only medical professionals, but physiotherapists and occupational therapists, too, are entitled to use the prefix ‘Dr’ with their names.

Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the state chapter of Indian Medical Association and others, which had challenged the use of the prefix by physiotherapists and occupational therapists, Justice V G Arun said there was no legal bar on such professionals prefixing ‘Dr’ to their name. The petitioners contended that while specialist medical professionals in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation are qualified doctors, physiotherapists and occupational therapists merely provide supportive services. They argued that such professionals do not possess the qualification to function as first-contact healthcare providers, and that their qualifications, at best, enable them to administer physiotherapy under the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner. 

The petitioners also challenged the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, which permits the use of the prefix ‘Dr’ with the suffix ‘PT’/‘OT’, contending that this equates them with modern medical practitioners. 

The HC, however, noted that the term ‘doctor’ originates from the Latin word doctor, meaning teacher or instructor, and that neither the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act nor allied statutes provide for the exclusive use of the prefix ‘Dr’ by qualified medical professionals. 

In the absence of such statutory provisions, the petitioners could not claim an exclusive right to use the prefix ‘Dr’, the bench said.

HC: No addl certificate needed for MD anaesthesiology docs

HC: No addl certificate needed for MD anaesthesiology docs

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 21.01.2026

Bengaluru : The high court has held that a medical doctor with a three-year MD degree in anaesthesiology qualifies as a registered medical practitioner under Rule 2(iv) (ib) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Rules and could thus be nominated as a designated doctor. The ruling came while allowing a joint petition filed by the Mangaluru branch of Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists, the Nursing Home and Hospital Management Association, Mangaluru, and Mangala Hospital and Mangala Kidney Foundation, Mangaluru. 

Mangala Hospital had challenged a June 27, 2025 communication from the assistant drugs controller of Mangaluru, refusing to renew its licence on grounds that the designated doctor — though an MD in anaesthesiology — lacked a certificate in pain relief and palliative care for opioid-dependence treatment. The official had indicated that the licence would be renewed if such a certificate was produced. The hospital claimed that MD anaesthesiology training inherently includes structured instruction in pain management, palliative care, and opioid-based therapy, including clinical use of narcotic analgesics, as mandated in the curriculum. It added that there was no statutory or regulatory requirement under the governing medical or narcotics control framework mandating the acquisition of any separate or additional certificate for a medical practitioner so qualified to provide pain relief, palliative care, or opioid-based treatment. 

On the other hand, the state govt defended its action, contending that the rules mandated possession of such training as a prerequisite. However, deputy solicitor general H Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the central govt, submitted that a degree in MD anaesthesiology was a recognised postgraduate qualification under National Medical Commission (NMC) and inherently satisfied the requirement under Rule 52N of the NDPS Rules, 1985, for registered medical practitioners to possess, prescribe, and dispense  essential narcotic drugs for pain relief and palliative care. He also submitted that no additional training was required for MD anaesthesiology holders to obtain an additional certificate or training in terms of Form 3F of the NDPS Rules. 

He also placed on record the opinion of subject expert Dr Atul Ambekar, professor, National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre, and department of psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. After perusing the materials on record, Justice Suraj Govindaraj pointed out that the central govt itself had categorically come to the conclusion that a registered medical practitioner holding an MD (anaesthesiology) degree does not require supplementary training in order to prescribe essential narcotic drugs for palliative care and pain management. Allowing the petition, the judge directed the assistant drugs controller, Mangaluru, to consider the qualification of the nominated doctor as sufficient and issue the necessary certificate of licence renewal to Mangala Hospital. 

9 years is enough punishment! Supreme Court tells university to consider apology of doctor penalised for wearing digital watch in exam

9 years is enough punishment! Supreme Court tells university to consider apology of doctor penalised for wearing digital watch in exam 

Written By : Barsha Misra

Published On 17 Jan 2026 1:27 PM 

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi: After considering the appeal of a young doctor's father, the Supreme Court has allowed the medico to tender an unconditional apology to the medical college for wearing a digital watch in an exam.

Further, the top court bench has also requested the university to consider his representation with "utmost sympathy" and an endeavour to save the young professional's career.

While considering the plea by the father, the Apex Court observed that the son's nine-year professional exile was "a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours", and also noted that any further blockage of his career would be "too harsh and disproportionate".

"At the end of the day, there is a father standing in court with folded hands, trying to save the academic career of his son, in whose MBBS degree, it appears that the University has made some adverse remarks based upon the history of adopting unfair means. The sheer frustration caused due to the inability of his son to pursue higher studies, is seemingly prompting the first petitioner, seemingly has brought negativity and is instigating the first petitioner to file complaints here and there. While we do not find any merit in those complaints, within the scope of interference under Article 137 of the Constitution, and consequently, we see no ground to interfere with the imprinted order passed by the Bar Council of India..." ordered the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The matter goes back to February 2017, when at Chennai-based Sri Ramachandra Medical College, the petitioner's son was found wearing a digital wristwatch during an examination. Under the University's strict "unfair means" policy, the student's exam was cancelled. Despite clearing the papers later, the shadow of the incident continued to follow the student. This resulted in the family getting engaged in a relentless legal crusade, losing in the High Court and the Supreme Court, dismissing their Review and Curative petitions.

As per the latest media report by Verdictum, the student's father appeared in person, alleging a conspiracy involving "polluted counsels" and "fabricated documents". He also argued that the Bar Council of India failed to investigate his claims of fraud by legal representatives who allegedly withdrew the petitions without consent.

After considering the matter, the Court observed,

"We are conscious of the fact that Ramchandra Medical College and Research Institute, Purur, Chennai, has not been called or heard at this stage. It is so only to avoid them to be burdened with litigation expenses, especially when we are not passing an order of irreversible adverse impact on the functioning of the college. So, all that we observe is that Petition No. 2, for that matter, even his father, Dr. ***, Petition No. 1, to tender an unconditional apology to the university along with an application for expunsion of the adverse marks said to have been recorded in the marksheet of MBBS degree. We request the medical college to consider such a representation with utmost sympathy and with an endeavour to save the professional career of a young doctor. The amendments in favour of the petitioners, it shall be highly appreciated if a favourable order is passed at the earliest and preferably within one month from the date of submission of the representation." While refusing to reopen the merits of the original 2017 disqualification or the dismissed curative petition, the Court pivoted toward a humanitarian solution. The Court observed that the sheer duration of the struggle- a nine-year block on a medical career- had become a punishment far exceeding the gravity of the original offence.

The Court did not entertain further litigation against legal professionals or the university and directed the petitioners to offer an unconditional apology to the institution. Also, the Court requested the University to act with "utmost sympathy" to expunge the adverse remarks, prioritising the future of young professionals over the technicalities of past misconduct.

"However, it seems to us that the first petitioner, as well as his son, have suffered enough on account of the misdemeanours committed by Petitioner No. 2 while he was appearing in the examination held on 23rd February 2017. The multiple rounds of unsuccessful litigation, coupled with the fact that Petition No. 2 has not been able to seek admission to higher specialised courses for almost nine years, is a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours attributed to him, his son, attributed to the second petitioner. If his professional career as a doctor is permanently blocked, which is bound to happen if there are adverse marks in his degree issued by the medical college, such a punishment will become too harsh and disproportionate to the proven misconduct," ordered the Court. With this observation, the Court disposed of the matter.

Madras HC relief for SC medico denied government quota

Madras HC relief for SC medico denied government quota

Affirmative action is not exception or bounty, but is constitutional right of student concerned, says Justice Chakravarthy

Differing with the submission, Justice Chakravarthy said, “I find force in the case of the petitioner that even though she comes within the government quota seats in the Private Medical College, she has wrongly been denied the seat.”(Express illustration)

R Sivakumar

Updated on:

09 Jan 2026, 8:28 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of an Arunthathiyar (SC-A) MBBS student, who was given admission under the management quota though eligible for government quota, by ordering the state government to bear the excess amount of fees over and above the government quota.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders recently on a petition filed by S Malarvizhi, of Palaiyapalayam village in Namakkal district, currently pursuing MBBS course at the Karpaga Vinayaga Medical College in Madhurantagam.

The petitioner scored 455 marks out of 720 in NEET and was eligible for admission under the government quota seat under SC-General category. However, she was given admission under the management quota during 2024-25. Seeking to quash the merit list as less meritorious candidates were given government quota seats, she moved the HC.

Representing the petitioner, advocate N G R Prasad, assisted by advocate Parveen Banu, submitted that the Selection Committee has committed the mistake of considering her only for SC-A quota and not under SC-General for which she was very much eligible.

He said the TN Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009, and Clause 18 (6) of the admission prospectus provided for considering the candidate under the SC-General category also but such benefit was denied.

However, standing counsel for the Selection Committee, advocate Sneha, submitted that as per the relevant Act and rules, an SC-A candidate can be considered for admission under the SC-General category only if there are no seats available in the former and when the petitioner was considered for admission, there were BDS seat vacancies under the SC-A category.

Differing with the submission, Justice Chakravarthy said, “I find force in the case of the petitioner that even though she comes within the government quota seats in the Private Medical College, she has wrongly been denied the seat.”

He said reservation is not a bounty but a right. “Even assuming that the procedure that is adopted by the respondents is right, now the law is very well-settled that the reservation or positive discrimination/affirmative action is not an exception or a bounty that is conferred on the student concerned but is a valuable constitutional right ensuring equality and merit,” he said.

Justice Chakravarthy also said the relevant Act, rules and the 2010 G.O. provide for consideration of SC-A candidates under the SC-General category too.

Declaring the non-selection of the petitioner to the government quota seat as “illegal”, he ordered the student to pay only the government quota fees and directed the respondent authorities to pay the difference of fees amount above the government quota amount of Rs 4.35 lakh per year and reimburse the difference in fees already paid.

The judge made it clear that the order of payment of difference in fee amount shall not preclude the petitioner from availing of scholarships or other benefits meant for SC-A students.