The Madras High Court has directed the National Testing Agency to provide sanitary pads near toilets at NEET exam centers across India, in response to a 19-year-old petitioner’s medical needs. The ruling aims to ensure adequate facilities for female candidates and has been well-received, though concerns about monitoring during restroom breaks have been raised.
Debabrata Saikia, Leader of Opposition in Assam, has filed an Interlocutory Application before the Supreme Court On 13th March, challenging the regulations and Citizenship Amendment Act. Saikia argues that the act’s classification based on religion and country of origin violates constitutional principles and the Assam Accord. He requests a halt to the act’s implementation, citing potential harm and constitutionality violations.
Asaram Bapu, a controversial spiritual leader, filed a Special Leave Petition with the Rajasthan High Court seeking urgent medical treatment at a specific hospital due to severe health issues. Despite facing legal challenges, his plea emphasizes his fundamental right to proper medical care, as his age and health conditions pose a significant risk in prison.
On 4th March: The Supreme Court of India has requested a government response to allegations of gender bias in the promotions of female army officers. Thirty women officers filed a contempt petition citing disparities in their promotion process compared to male counterparts. The plea challenges a selection board recommending only eight women officers for promotion against 42 available slots, despite a previous directive for fair and transparent selection processes.
The Supreme Court emphasized the inclusion of women in defense services, responding to a petition by a female Coast Guard officer seeking a permanent commission. The judges criticized the Coast Guard’s exclusion of women compared to the Army and Navy, citing gender equality and the Babita Punia judgment. The court requested a formal response from the Centre and set a follow-up hearing for March 1.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the right to adopt children is not a fundamental right and upheld restrictions on adopting a “normal child” for parents who already have two children. This decision supports amendments to the Adoption Rules, aiming to encourage the adoption of children with special needs and applies the changes retroactively but not retrospectively.
The Bombay High Court granted two couples the right to pursue surrogacy with donor eggs, challenging the 2023 amendment to surrogacy regulations. The ruling recognized the couples’ right to parenthood, emphasizing reproductive health as a fundamental liberty. The decision sets a precedent for couples seeking alternative paths to parenthood under Indian law.
Supreme Court Deliberates on Section 6A of Citizenship Act: Examining Government’s Role in Assam’s Welfare The Supreme Court of India, while hearing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, has made significant observations regarding the government’s role in making political compromises for the nation’s welfare. The Constitution Bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and […]
Delhi High Court Upholds UPSC’s Decision to Cancel Aspirant’s Candidature Over Incorrect Application Form The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision to cancel the candidature of a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) aspirant for the Civil Services (Main) Examination due to the submission of an incorrect photograph and signature in her application form. The […]