High Court scrapes Lucknow University law admission ordinance

In the writ petition filed by one LLM aspirant, the petitioner challenged the validity of the university ordinance that provides 80 per cent seat reservation only to LU law graduates.

High Court scrapes Lucknow University law admission ordinance

High Court scrapes Lucknow University law admission ordinance

  • 7-year-old girl seeks a job in Google, gets touching reply from Sundar Pichai
  • CBSE scrapes academic reforms, might discontinue international curriculum
  • Mumbai University: Students, working professional pursuing distance learning course to get free counselling
  • USD 1.5 million grant provided to US University for Jainism Studies
  • NEET 2017: Allahabad HC seeks response from Centre, MCI over age limit

After a writ petition filed by one LLM aspirant challenging the validity of the ordinance that provide 80 per cent seats to LU law graduates, the High Court Lucknow bench has annulled the ordinance duly.

Moreover, the High Court bench headed by Justice DK Upadhyay also directed the university to scrape the ordinance by this academic session 2017-2018.

While the court asked the varsity to complete the current admission process, which is delayed due to the court’s interim direction at the earlier point of time, the teachers are anticipated to cooperate in finishing the course in order to hold the examinations as it has been scheduled.

More on the news:

  • In the writ petition filed by one LLM aspirant, the petitioner challenged the validity of the university ordinance that provides 80 per cent seat reservation only to LU law graduates
  • The petitioner, considering Supreme Court’s directives, had pleaded that only 50 per cent of reservation are permitted to the institution
  • The university defending its ordinance pleaded that their students who generally secured 70-75 per cent are unable to secure admission in other universities as national law universities and other universities including the private ones adopted grading system which rendered their students an edge over LU’s students
  • The High Court however dismissed LU’s plea and observed that, “No study appears to have been conducted by the university before framing the impugned ordinance, neither any such material has been supplied to conclude as to how in the absence of a grading system to evaluate LLB examination is resulting in irreparable disadvantage to Lucknow University law graduates,” as reported in TOI.
  • source”cnbc”

School under serious allegations, Delhi High Court seeks response from government

Apart from receiving donation from the stake holders for admission, the school is also facing allegations on ground of fraudulent activities in connection with the scholarship amount given to poor students.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

  • IIM Bill 2017 expected to be tabled today at Lok Sabha
  • JNU refuses media reports about reduction in academic seats
  • Education for girls: HRD ministry forms a sub-panel under CABE
  • Teachers protest against West Bengal Universities and Colleges Bill 2017
  • CBSE NEET UG 2017: All you need to know

Following the various irregularities and the alleged collection of donation from parents by the staff of certain government schools for smooth admission, the Delhi High Court has sought a response from the government on whether it has made any inquiry on the matter or not.

The lawyer representing Delhi government was asked by Justice Manmohan of Delhi High Court to take instructions on why the Directorate of Education (DoE) has not till date complied with the high court’s direction of August 24, 2016.

The High Court in August last year issued a direction to inquire into the allegations against a government-aided school and listed the matter for hearing on March 1.

More on the news:

  • The court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Anup Kumar Das, seeking contempt action against the DoE official concerned and the chief secretary of Delhi government for not carrying out the inquiry and taking a decision within three months as was ordered by the high court in August last year
  • According to the petitioners, Arun Kashyap and M R Mahapatra, even the office of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had written to DoE in January last year to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and give a report within 15 days, but nothing was done
  • Thereafter, they had moved a plea in the high court for directions to DoE to take action against the school and its staff and it was on this petition that the August 24, 2016 order was passed.

More allegations

Apart from the aforementioned malpractices, the school is also facing allegations on ground of fraudulent activities in connection with the scholarship amount given for uniform and stationery to poor students.

The school administration was also accused by the petitioners of continuing to claim from DoE the salary of a head clerk who had gone on medical leave and subsequently joined a private firm.


All universities to have ‘Grievance Redressal Cell’ within four months: Delhi High Court directs UGC

Appointment of an ‘ombudsman’ in every university and a grievance redressal committee (GRC) for every college or group of colleges are now “mandatory”.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

  • No fellowship to non-NET candidates: UGC
  • CBSE won’t apply its 3 Indian language plan for Class 10 Board exam till 2020
  • CBSE: Physical education to be made compulsory for Class 10 students
  • Neighbourhood criteria, not a new concept: DoE
  • Congress MP raises issue of student suicide in RS

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, after identifying the need to address the grievances faced by scores of students in colleges and universities, directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to set up ‘Grievance Redressal Cell’ in all varsities within four months.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said appointment of an ‘ombudsman’ in every university and a grievance redressal committee (GRC) for every college or group of colleges were “mandatory” and were provided  for under the UGC (Grievance Redressal) Regulations of 2012.

Also Read: No fellowship to non-NET candidates: UGC

The court said failure of the universities to appoint ombudsman or to constitute GRC for colleges “would defeat the very object of grievance redressal mechanism provided under the regulations”. It also directed Delhi University (DU) to “take necessary steps forthwith and appoint the ombudsman” in terms of provisions of the regulations “as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from today”.

The court’s ruling came while disposing of a PIL filed by a former law student, who had alleged non-compliance of the UGC regulations with regard to appointment of ombudsman by universities, particularly DU.

As per the regulations, the ombudsman “shall be a part-time officer appointed for a period of three years or until he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier”, the bench noted in its judgment


Trump immigration ban still in place despite court ruling, says DHS

Hours after a federal judge issued a stay on President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily restricting entry to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a senior White House adviser issued robust responses, emphasizing that the order remains in force.

In a statement issued in the early hours of Sunday, the Department said: “President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety.”

It added that the department will “continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.”

In addition, Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, told the Associated Press that nothing in the judge’s order “in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect.”

Protesters outside Terminal 5 of O'Hare International Airport demand that travelers detained inside due to President Trump's order to ban people from seven predominantly Muslim countries are released on January 28, 2017.

Max Herman | NurPhoto | Getty Images
Protesters outside Terminal 5 of O’Hare International Airport demand that travelers detained inside due to President Trump’s order to ban people from seven predominantly Muslim countries are released on January 28, 2017.

The responses came just hours after federal Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York granted an emergency stay on parts of the order late Saturday. Her ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of two Iraqi refugees who had been detained at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport.

The stay will prevent the government from deporting citizens from the affected countries that had already arrived in the U.S.The ACLU estimated that around 200 people would be affected by the ruling.

For travelers outside of the U.S. however, even those with valid visas, the ruling will not change the restrictions imposed on them by the order.


  • Citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen will be prohibited from entering the U.S. for 90 days.
  • Green card holders from any of those countries currently outside of the U.S. will need to report to a local U.S. consulate for “extra vetting,” and admitted or rejected on a case-by-case basis, according to administration officials.
  • Refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.: All refugees will be banned from entering the country for 120 days. Refugees from Syria will be banned indefinitely.
  • Anyone with U.S. citizenship will not be affected.

A DHS spokesperson on Saturday told the Associated Press that foreign-born U.S. residents who could have been barred from re-entering the United States under Trump’s immigration order have been allowed back into the country.

The official said all green card holders from the seven countries who sought to enter the U.S. Saturday were granted special permission


Instead of taking over private schools, improve public schools: Delhi High Court

Instead of taking over the private schools, government should mull over to improve public schools in such a manner that the parents will opt for public school in the near future, observed Justice Manmohan.

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

  • UPSC Civil Services Examinations: Disabled candidates to get seven not ten chances, directs SC
  • CBSE Board Exam 2017: Peon allegedly steals blank answer sheets
  • Rajasthan: University to offer certificate, diploma courses on birds
  • SSC CGL Tier II Re-Examination 2016: Answer keys released at ssc.nic.in, submit objections till Jan 27
  • Delhi Nursery Admissions: Deadline for EWS category extended to February 14

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, identifying the poor quality of education and infrastructure in government schools, questioned the AAP government whether its bureaucrats intend to send their wards in government schools or not.

Severed with poor quality education and poor infrastructures, public schools are in no way near comparison to private schools.

“Your standards have fallen so steeply that it will take time to come up to the mark,” the court remarked adding, “Can you and me decide where the child of a parent should go to study.”

Instead of taking over the private schools, government should mull over to improve public schools in such a manner that the parents will opt for public school in the near future, observed Justice Manmohan.

“Your (Delhi government) schools are below the line. In United States of America people prefer to admit their children in public schools as the infrastructure and teachers are good. In our public schools, the teachers do not even turn up for classes. It’s not worth talking about the infrastructure,” the court said, noting that “choice of freedom for everyone, especially with regard to education, cannot be merely taken away by an order” with regard to nursery admission on the basis of the neighbourhood criterion.

What has prompted the Delhi High Court to step in?

Following the orders issued by the AAP government in the recent times asking the private schools to admit students in nursery from its neighbourhood, the private schools took the matter to the court.

The recent court’s observation came following the hearing of pleas challenging the AAP government’s recent order to private unaided schools to admit students in nursery using the neighbourhood norm.

The nursery admission guidelines have been bringing up major issues for the private schools lately.

The Delhi High Court had earlier slammed the AAP government for issuing the admission guidelines in a limited time where several parents were left confused and aggrieved.

Government’s stance for over this decision:

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Directorate of Education (DoE), claimed that the government has been taking due initiatives to improve public schools and guidelines imposed on the private unaided schools as a part of it, so that they will be allowed to go ahead with the decision. (neighbourhood norm).

“DoE has power to regulate rules with regard to schools here and the institutes should abide by these,” informed ASG to the court adding the last date for submissions of forms for nursery admission have been extended till February 14.

However, the court has opined that such practice will invite corruption as it will prompt the parents to provide false documents during the admission process just to secure admission for their wards.


New Zealand court lets Low family replace trustees in 1MDB-linked case

Jho Low speaks onstage during Angel Ball 2014 hosted by Gabrielle's Angel Foundation at Cipriani Wall Street on October 20, 2014 in New York City.

A New Zealand court on Friday approved a request by relatives of Malaysian businessman Low Taek Jho to appoint new trustees to fight the seizure of assets by the U.S. government in its investigation of the scandal-tainted 1MDB fund.

Low and several family members stand to lose $260 million in assets held in New Zealand trusts that they benefited from after the U.S. government seized the assets in a California court proceeding.

Assets included a aircraft, property in New York and the Viceroy L’Ermitage Hotel in Beverly Hills.

In its ruling, the New Zealand High Court agreed to a request by Low’s family members to replace their Swiss trustees with New Zealand and Cayman Islands trust services companies.

“I am satisfied that the replacement of the current trustees with trustees who are willing to ensure that proper legal steps are taken in the California proceedings is not only expedient, but necessary to safeguard the trust assets,” Judge Christopher Toogood said in his judgment.

Court records said the Swiss trustees did not take any steps to stop the seizure, citing concerns that that would be considered money laundering by the U.S. government.

The Swiss trustees did not oppose the replacement.

Low’s family lawyer, Michael Kyriak, declined to comment.

Low Taek Jho, commonly referred to as Jho Low, is among the people named in civil lawsuits filed in July by the U.S. Department of Justice, which alleged that more than $3.5 billion was misappropriated from the One Malaysia Development Berhad fund (1MDB).

The lawsuits seek to seize $1 billion in assets allegedly siphoned off from 1MDB and diverted into valuable paintings, a private jet, and luxury real estate in the United States and London.

Judge Toogood said the New Zealand court had no view on the merits of the U.S. government’s allegations.

New Zealand has long been identified as offering a trust regime popular with the offshore wealth management business because its foreign trusts are secretive and not subject to tax.

New Zealand in July said it will introduce a registry of foreign trusts that tax and law enforcement agencies could use to investigate suspected money laundering and tax evasion.


Girl’s mother took Govt. School to Delhi High Court

Girl School

Mother of a 13 year-old girl filed a petition at the Delhi High Court against Government Girls Senior Secondary School in Shahbad Dairy, Rohini, New Delhi, for not providing the students with books in timely manner.

The 13-year old girl faced a tough time at schools despite government’s relentless effort to enhance the education system. Being severed with poverty, the girl did not even have a decent money to buy study materials such as notebooks, pen and pencils, and other school books. On top of all these difficulties, students received the study materials from the schools after the commencement of new academic session about a month ago.

News in brief:

  • Despite negligence from the schools side, the mother who filed the complaint at the Delhi High Court wishes to remain anonymous fearing the school might discriminate her daughter at school
  • In her petition, she urged both the state and the central government to ensure that schools provides all the necessary materials as prescribed under the Right to Education (RTE) Act to avail quality education for all students across the schools
  • “The petitioner and several other parents like her have no means to buy books, notebooks, pens and uniform. They get books so late that they fall behind in studies and it’s difficult to catch up. The government says it provides parents with direct money transfers for school uniforms and writing material but there are serious issues with this approach,” said Khagesh Jha, RTE activist and a lawyer
  • “Funds are not really an issue. Of the amount to be spent on children’s needs, 70 per cent is to be paid by the central government and the remaining by the Delhi government. Fund transfer is not the ideal model,” added Jha
  • According to the mother, the petitioner, government transferred the funds through electric clearing service (ECS) directly to students account are often obstruct with continuous technical errors. She also said that most students did not have bank accounts and even if they received the funds it is likely that the money won’t be use for the child
  • The RTE activist said that Delhi government gave subsidy for the poor students such as school uniforms and notebook materials before the RTE Act intervention directing the state not to give subsidy but provide them with study materials
  • The Delhi High Court will hear the petition on Monday
  • As per HT report, Delhi’s Education Minister, Manish Sisodia couldn’t be reached despite repeated attempts.


Delhi High Court dismisses plea challenging NEET 2016 answer keys

Delhi High Court dismisses plea challenging NEET 2016 answer keys

It seems like the confusions, paper leak and other issues will continue to hover over the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) conducted this year.

In a recent statement, while rejecting the a petition challenging the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) answer keys released on August 8, the High Court of Delhi said that it cannot review answer keys prepared by subject experts.

Who filed the petition?

  • The petition was filed by Sagar Sanjeev Dua challenging the answers of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to five questions of NEET
  • Students who appeared for the examination earlier pointed out three questions, two under the Chemistry section and one under the Biology section, that are allegedly marked wrongly in the answer key
  • While commenting on the answer keys, Rajesh Jain, from the Parents’ Association for Medical Students (PAMS), in recent HT report said, “A student is awarded four marks for every correct answer and a negative mark for every wrong one. Looking at the bulk of students who have pointed out the same mistakes, looks like CBSE will have to take this into consideration”
  • Students are hoping for a positive reaction from the authorities, Rajesh Jain added

Details of the judgment:

  • While speaking in this case, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said that it cannot take over the task of correcting the answer set as they are prepared by independent subject experts
  • “In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and to examine the questions and the answer key set by the respondents (CBSE and others) and even to return a prima facie finding that the contention of the petitioner (that) the answers given by the petitioner are correct or the answers given by the respondents are incorrect,” Justice Sachdeva added
  • “The question paper is from physics, chemistry and biology. For a court to assess and examine even, prima facie, whether the answers are correct or incorrect, would be beyond the competence of a court, which may not be an expert in the said subjects,” the bench said

Further, the court said, the information bulletin for NEET-2016 also specified that there was no provision for rejecting or re-evaluating the answer sheets.

Not only this, the court also cited a judgement of the Supreme Court where it was mentioned that the court cannot take upon itself the task of statutory authorities and is not permitted to take upon itself the task of examiner and examine the discrepancies in the question paper and evaluation process.


Apple: FBI’s surprise postponement of court hearing is a ‘bolt from the blue’

fftf fbi protest la grove2

No more than 18 hours before a scheduled court hearing, the FBI is now saying it doesn’t need any help from Apple to get into San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone 5c. So, as of Monday night, the hearing has been called off, and the February 16 court order that started Apple’s battle with the FBI has been stayed.

Wait, what?

“On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone,” the Department of Justice wrote in a Monday afternoon court filing. “Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook’s iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case.”

Early Monday night, Apple held a conference call with reporters to discuss the latest development, which surprised Apple as much as everyone else who’s been following the case. After all, the FBI and its director, James Comey, have insisted multiple times thatonly Apple has the expertise to break into this phone.

This premise was the linchpin to the FBI’s request for Apple to write “GovtOS,” a version of iOS that would run on Farook’s phone and remove the Erase Data feature that would wipe the phone after 10 incorrect guesses at his passcode. In fact, warrants issued under the All Writs Act need to pass some tests (established by the courts in prior cases), and one of them is whether such a warrant is “necessary and appropriate.” If the FBI is now claiming it doesn’t need Apple’s help, it’s suddenly uncertain whether that court order would pass the “necessary” test.

The stay, issued by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym on Monday afternoon, reads in part:

As there is presently uncertainty surrounding the government’s need for Apple’s assistance, the court’s February 16, 2016 Order Compelling Apple, Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, in case number ED 15–451-M, is hereby stayed, pending further submissions in this case.

It’s not over yet, though. The stay also gives the government a deadline of April 5 “to file a status report.” If the FBI is indeed able to get into Farook’s phone without destroying its data, the government might choose to drop the issue altogether.

Of course, if the government is successful in accessing Farook’s phone, then Apple will be left with unanswered questions of its own—the first being, How exactly did the FBI get inside the phone? “This was a bolt from the blue from them,” said Apple’s lawyers. Indeed, the company says it had no idea the FBI was still attempting to break the iPhone’s encryption on its own.

Right now, Apple doesn’t know how—or even if—the phone was breached. But they’re curious. Apple’s lawyers said that if the government decides it wants to pursue the case, the company would want to find out who the government consulted to get into the phone without Apple’s assistance, and what “method” they were offered. If the government drops the case, Apple still hopes the FBI would share what it learned about iOS’s vulnerabilities.

So for the time being, the case is on hold. Judge Pym wants a status update from the government by April 5. The stay is embedded below.
[“source -cncb”]

Guidelines meant to protect good Samaritans approved by Supreme Court

Guidelines meant to protect good Samaritans approved by Supreme Court

Good Samaritans who help road accident victims will no longer be unnecessarily harassed by police or any other authority as the Supreme Court has approved the guidelines by the Centre. The bench comprising justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra directed the Central Government to give wide publicity to these guidelines so that people who help others in the time of distress are not victimised by any authority.

Based on the recommendations of the three-member committee headed by former judge K S Radhakrishnan which was recorded by the bench, the guidelines were placed by the bench.

The Apex committee gave suggestions to strengthen enforcement relating to drunken driving, over-speeding, red light jumping and helmet and seat belt laws. Additionally, it also gave 12 major recommendations which included setting up of State Road Safety Councils, evolving a protocol for identification of black spots along with their removal and monitoring to see the effectiveness of the action taken.

A  statement also mentioned that in the absence of any statutory backing, it was not possible to enforce these guidelines and that is why the Apex Court was brought into the picture.
[“source -pcworld”]