JEE-Advanced 2025 || “Lack of Uniformity in Attempts Deprives Equal Opportunity”: SC Asks Centre, Others to Respond

Today, On 27th March, The Supreme Court asked the Centre and other authorities to respond to a petition concerning JEE-Advanced 2025. The plea raises concerns about eligibility criteria and exam-related issues. The court’s notice seeks clarity on the matter before making a decision. Further hearings will determine if any changes are required for the exam process.

EVM-VVPAT Verdict | “Will Not Entertain Writ Petitions When Based Solely on Suspicion of Rights Infringement”: Justice Datta

A writ petition ought not to be entertained if the plea is based on the mere suspicion that a right could be infringed, Supreme Court judge Justice Dipankar Datta said Yesterday (April 26th). He was part of the apex court bench which rejected pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with a VVPAT.

EVM-VVPAT Verdict | “Democracy Fosters Harmony and Trust Among All Pillars”: Justice Datta

Justice Dipankar Datta Today (April 26th) emphasized democracy’s essence as building harmony and trust through open dialogue, transparency, and active participation. He supported the existing electoral system, advocating for a balanced perspective and evidence-based approaches to improvements. The Supreme Court’s verdict included directions for the Election Commission regarding EVM verification and sealing symbol loading units.

VVPAT Row | “Nipping Attempts to Weaken Our Nation’s Progress in the Bud”: Justice Datta’s Warning

Supreme Court judge Dipankar Datta Today (April 26th) said there seems to be a concerted effort to discredit, diminish and weaken India’s progress on every possible frontier and any such attempt has to be “nipped in the bud”, while rejecting pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)

Advocate Attempts to Hit Defense Lawyer | Court Urges Bar Bodies to Take Action

A court here has asked bar bodies to take appropriate action after an advocate “unnecessarily provoked” and tried to hit the defence lawyer during trial proceedings.