![[NEET-UG 2024 Row] Controversy Over NEET-UG Physics Question: IIT-D Experts Confirm Only One Correct Answer](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-39-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Three AIIMS Patna doctors are detained by the CBI today for their involvement in the NEET-UG paper leak and exam irregularities. Two individuals have already been arrested, with one detained for 14 days and the other for 10. The Supreme Court is set to hear multiple petitions related to the controversy, with the Centre and NTA providing additional affidavits.
Today(on 8th July), Chief Justice DY Chandrachud acknowledged the NEET-UG 2024 question paper leak, stressing the assessment of its impact on 23 lakh students before considering a re-examination, emphasizing the need for clarity on identifying affected candidates to determine if a retest is necessary.
The Union Education Ministry is open to conducting a fresh NEET-UG exam for all 24 lakh candidates, pending Supreme Court orders on July 8. This decision reflects a commitment to fairness and integrity, amidst ongoing scrutiny over the exam’s transparency. The ministry’s willingness to adapt to the court’s directives underscores its serious approach to resolving the NEET-UG controversy.
NEW DELHI: Today (10th April): The Supreme Court has rejected Patanjali’s unconditional apology for misleading advertisements, criticizing the company for deliberate disobedience. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that leniency would not be shown. Patanjali founders acknowledged the breach, but the court disapproved, asserting the seriousness of the matter. The case pertains to false advertisements for Patanjali’s medicinal products.
On Tuesday (2nd April): A nine-judge Constitution Bench is deliberating on whether the regulation of industrial alcohol is the exclusive domain of either the Union or state governments or if it can be jointly handled. The background includes previous court decisions on the interpretation of relevant laws, leading to divergent views. The case has raised significant arguments related to the Constitution’s framers’ intentions and the scope of governmental authority.