UN experts call on India to immediately release rights defenders, arrested for protesting against changes to the nation’s citizenship laws. The arrests seem designed to send a chilling message that criticism of government policies will not be tolerated

GENEVA (26 June 2020) – UN experts* today called on India to immediately release human rights defenders who have been arrested for protesting against changes to the nation’s citizenship laws.

“These defenders, many of them students, appear to have been arrested simply because they exercised their right to denounce and protest against the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), and their arrest seems clearly designed to send a chilling message to India’s vibrant civil society that criticism of government policies will not be tolerated,” the experts said.

One of the most alarming cases concerns pregnant Delhi student Safoora Zargar, who was detained for over two months having allegedly been kept in conditions equating to solitary confinement, denied regular contact with her family and legal representative, and having not been provided adequate medical care or diet. She was finally granted bail on 23 June 2020, in her sixth month of pregnancy, on humanitarian grounds.

The CAA provides expedited and simplified access to citizenship for people from specific religious minorities from several neighbouring countries but it excludes Muslims. Its adoption in December 2019 provoked nationwide protests by Indians from diverse faiths – including Hindus – who believe it violates the secular foundations of India’s constitution.

Many of the 11 individual cases* include serious allegations of human rights violations, several relating to due process failings during arrest and detention, as well as allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

“Authorities should immediately release all human rights defenders who are currently being held in pre-trial detention without sufficient evidence, often simply on the basis of speeches they made criticising the discriminatory nature of the CAA,” they said.

The experts also highlighted their concern that the authorities’ response to the protests seemed discriminatory. It appears they have not similarly investigated allegations of incitement to hatred and violence made by CAA supporters, some of whom are reported to have chanted “shoot the traitors” at counter-rallies.

The experts further flagged their concern that authorities were invoking counter-terrorism or national security legislation, and using procedural police powers, to deny bail to protesters and issue charges carrying heavy sentences.

“Although demonstrations ended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and India’s Supreme Court issued a recent order to decongest jails because of health concerns related to the pandemic, protest leaders continue to be detained. The reported spread of the virus in Indian prisons makes their immediate release all the more urgent,” the experts said.

They are in contact with the Government on this matter.

Supreme court Stays Investigation & Coercive Action On Multiple FIRs Against Journalist Amish Devgan Over Remarks On Sufi Saint Moinuddin Chishti

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed investigation and coercive action against News18 anchor Amish Devgan on the multiple FIRs registered against him over his remarks on Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti till the next date of hearing.

A vacation bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar,  Dinesh Maheshwari  and Sanjiv Khanna issued notice on his writ petition seeking quashing of the FIRs and asked him to implead all the defacto complainants.

The notice is returnable by July 8 and the matter will be listed after that.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Devgan, submitted that his client had made an “inadvertent error” during his show for which he later issued public apology. Lodging of FIRs against the journalist for a “slip of tongue” is unjust and amounts to undue harassment, he submitted.

“If this starts happening, where people are dealt with for slip of the tongue, what will happen? Errors people make. He has also profusely apologized”, Luthra submitted.

He said that multiple FIRs have been registered in Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Telangana against Devgan and that it would cause grave prejudice to him if he is asked to appear in different places across the country in connection with the FIRs. His family members are also being threatened and harassed, Luthra said.

Advocate Rizwan Merchant, appearing for two complainants from Maharashtra, submitted that Devgan used the term “lootera Chishti” more than once during his show.

While hosting a debate on June 15 on PIL’s regarding the Place of Worship Special Provision Act on his show ‘Aar Par’, Amish had called Khwaja Moinuddin Chisthi, better known as Khwaja Ghreeb Nawaz, an “attacker” and “looter”.

Following that, several police complaints and FIRs were registered against the anchor across the country.

Devgan’s petition filed through Advocate Vivek Jain seeks quashing of the FIRs which have invoked sections 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), ‪153A‬ (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Devgan had also profusely apologised for referring to the Sufi Saint as a “lootera” and called it an “inadvertent error”.

His tweet of apology read: 

“In 1 of my debates,I inadvertently referred to ‘Khilji’ as Chishti. I sincerely apologise for this grave error and the anguish it may hv caused to followers of the Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti, whom I revere. I have in the past sought blessings at his dargah.I regret this error”

How are PMC Bank depositors differently circumstanced in comparison to Yes Bank: Delhi HC directs RBI, Centre to explain

The Court was hearing a petition concerning the fate of the deposits made with the PMC Bank.

Taking note of their crucial role in the Reconstruction Scheme to revive Yes Bank, the Delhi High Court has directed Reserve Bank of India and Central Government to explain how the depositors of Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd are differently circumstanced in comparison to the depositors of Yes Bank. (Sandeep Bhalla vs RBI)

The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher in a plea by one of the depositors, Sandeep Bhalla, seeking a direction to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue a statement on timeliness and safety of deposits held by the depositors with the Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd (PMC Bank).

The plea forms part of a petition concerning the fate of the deposits made with the PMC Bank.

On the last occasion, the Court had directed the Ministry of Finance, Central Government to disclose if it intended to infuse funds, as it allgedly did in Yes Bank, to render financial support to PMC Bank.

In response, the Central Government filed an affidavit stating that it had not invested any funds in Yes Bank.

It was stated that investment in the share capital of Yes Bank was done by several investors, including the State Bank of India (SBI), pursuant to the Yes Bank Limited Reconstruction Scheme, 2020.

After perusing the affidavit, the Court observed,

“..what has emerged upon perusal of the notification is that, both, the Reserve Bank of India [in short “RBI”] as well as the UOI had a crucial role to play in the decision taken to: permit, firstly, the Reconstruction Scheme being brought into play and, secondly, to have it funded.”

The Court thus directed RBI to file an affidavit explaining as to what propelled it to take action in the “public interest” to secure the interest of the depositors of Yes Bank and the reason why sanction was accorded to the Reconstruction Scheme by the Central Government.Therefore, both the RBI as well as the UOI will file additional affidavits bringing on record the documents, which will establish the reasons which propelled the said decision to be taken i.e. the forging of the Reconstruction Scheme. The affidavits will delve into the aspect as to how the depositors of PMC Bank are differently circumstanced in comparison to the depositors of Yes Bank.Delhi High Court

It further directed the Central Government to file an affidavit indicating the shares it holds in SBI and the representation it has on the SBI’s Board of Directors.

The PMC Bank Administrator also informed the Court that as on June 25, none of the seized assets of PMC Bank had been liquidated and an application qua this aspect had been filed before the court concerned.

Directing the Administrator to file an affidavit on the above aspect, the Court stated,Given the dire state in which the depositors of PMC Bank are placed today, the Administrator, to my mind, should approach the concerned Court and make an endeavour to hasten the process. The circumstances created by the Coronavirus pandemic affects even the depositors of the PMC Bank.Delhi High Court

The matter would be heard next on August 6.

RBI was represented by Advocates HS Parihar, Kuldeep Parihar, Ikshita Parihar.

Centre was represented by Standing Counsel Jasmeet Singh.

Administrator was represented Advocate by Purusharth Bisht

SC approves CBSE’s scheme on cancellation of Class 10 and 12 exams, reassessment formula; results out by 15 July, board tells court

The Supreme Court on Friday approved the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) draft notification to cancel the pending Class 10 and Class 12 exams

The Supreme Court on Friday approved the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) draft notification to cancel the pending Class 10 and Class 12 exams and gave a go-ahead to its scheme to award marks to students for the cancelled papers scheduled to be held in July.

This, after Exam Controller Sanyam Bhardwaj, told the apex court that CBSE Class 10 and 12 results would be declared by 15 July.

CBSE’s assessment scheme will consider marks achieved by the students in the last three papers of board exams and students may take admission on the basis of this result, Bhardwaj further told the court.

If Class 12 students appear for optional exams, marks obtained will be treated as the final score, Bharadwaj said.

A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna permitted the CBSE to issue a notification for the cancellation of the examinations.

The top court was hearing pleas seeking relief, including the scrapping of remaining exams of Class 12 scheduled from July 1 to 15, in view of the increasing number of COVID-19 cases. Similar relief was sought by the ICSE Board also.

The ICSE board for Class 10 examinations informed the Supreme Court that it will pursue the scheme framed by the CBSE but will follow a slightly different assessment scheme for awarding marks to students. The board further said that the notification will be sent to the apex court in a week.

The ICSE board also told the top court the results of Class 10 and 12 board exams can be declared by middle of July.

The apex court gave the ICSE a week to notify with slight changes on optional exams for Class 10.

“We accept the notification issued by CBSE. Any other petition considering the subject of conducting exams for Class X and XII by CBSE scheduled for July 1 to July 15, 2020, stands disposed of by this order. ICSE in principle will issue similar notification,” ordered the apex court.

The Supreme Court then wrapped up the matter, saying similar matters in high courts too will be disposed of in terms of this order.

CA Exam July 2020: PIL filed in Supreme Court seeking a stay on opt-out scheme

CA Exam : Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court (SC) of India seeking a stay on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) opt-out scheme for CA Course July 2020 exams. ICAI on 15th June 2020 had given its candidates the option to opt-out of exams scheduled in July / August 2020. Candidates who had applied for the CA May exams could fill the application to OPT OUT until 27th June 2020.

The PIL filed in the apex court seeking a stay on this opt-out scheme called it a violation of the fundamental rights of students. The petition also sought more examination centres for the conducting the CA Exam July 2020. Reportedly 4.67 lakh candidates are appearing for the CA exams this year.

The ICAI had scheduled the exams to be conducted between 29th July 2020 to 16th August 2020. The opt-out scheme was provided by ICAI after taking into account the several student protests in the country mentioning their inability to travel towards the exam centres. The opt-out scheme provided such students with the opportunity to not appear in the July exams and appear for the same in November. The institute also said that the attempt of the students who applied for the CA May 2020 attempt but choosing to opt-out will not be counted.

The PIL has been filed by Alok Srivastava on behalf of India Wide Parents Association. The apex court has scheduled the hearing in the coming days. The petition also raises questions for candidates hailing from remote areas of the country or those living in containment zones of the country.

It claims that this option is discriminatory towards such candidates as they are slated to lose one precious ‘examination attempt’, if they go for the ‘opt-out’ option as opposed to the ‘privileged’ candidate in big cities or green zones who will not face any problem in appearing for the exam in the present COVID-19 pandemic situation.

The petition has asked the Supreme Court to squash the 15th June notice by ICAI and also demanding the examination body for an increase in the number of exam centres so that all students all across the country can attempt the exams in one go. The PIL demands at least one centre per district all over India. Presently, ICAI has designated about 259 examination centres in India and five centres overseas for the CA July 2020 exams.

SC dismisses review petitions challenging 2018 verdict on adultery

In September 2018, the Supreme Court had scrapped the 19th century law on adultery calling it arbitrary and offensive to a woman’s dignity.

The Supreme Court said there is no need to revisit its ruling on adultery

The Supreme Court said there is no need to revisit its ruling on adultery.

The Supreme Court has held that its historic decision stubbing out the 158-year old archaic law on adultery from the criminal statute book does not require any reconsideration.null

The decision passed by the Court nearly 20 months ago was challenged in two review petitions. A five-judge Constitution bench heard the matter in chambers and dismissed the same last month. The order passed on May 28 was recently uploaded on the Supreme Court website.

An organization called All Religious Affinity Movement and an individual Ravi Kumar filed separate review pleas seeking recall of the Court’s verdict as it was against the concept of family.

A bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said, “We have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and the connected papers filed therewith. We do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same. The Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

It was on September 27, 2018 the apex court took a bold decision to scrap Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code that punished adultery. This provision was treated as a relic of the Victorian era as it allowed a husband to prosecute any man who engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with his wife.

The law was challenged by Joseph Shine, an Indian settled abroad, who found it to be archaic, discriminatory and arbitrary. He wondered that if the purpose of the law is to protect the sanctity of family and marriage, the choice should be given to both husband and wife to prosecute their cheating spouse. On the contrary, the provision allowed only the husband to lodge a case of adultery against the other man in his wife’s life. Further, Shine pointed out that provision worked on the concept of husband’s consent. If a husband consents to his wife having sex with a stranger, regardless of the woman’s consent, no case under this section will be made out.

Speaking to HT after the rejection of the review petitions, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj who had argued for Joseph Shine in the Supreme Court, said, “The dismissal of the review petitions is a big boost for the libertarian movement of individual rights across the world. This judgment fenced the State from interfering in individual behaviour that was not criminal in nature.

The then CJI Dipak Misra had said that adultery at best could be a civil or moral wrong that could be a ground to seek divorce. Treating it as an offence would tantamount to the State entering into a private realm, he had said.

Except for former CJI Dipak Misra who has since retired, the remaining four judges who delivered the landmark ruling were part of the bench that heard the review petitions.

Adultery has ceased to be a crime in China, Japan, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Germany, Austria, the Republic of Ireland, Barbados, Bermuda, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Seychelles. It continues to be a crime in countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, United Arab Emirates, some states of the United States of America, Algeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Morocco, and some parts of Nigeria.null

The five-judge bench was unanimous in its view that the 158-year old law does not square with the Constitutional law of the present times. It was also seen to deprive a woman of her dignity, sexual autonomy as the law treated her to be a property of her husband.

Ramdev and the Coronil claim: Patanjali treading on thin legal ice, but enforcement gaps might let yoga guru get away with COVID-19 ‘drug’

As the world looks for solutions for the pandemic that has held us hostage for the last few months, and threatens our way of life for at least the next few, Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd on Wednesday launched an Ayurvedic medicine – named Coronil, and claimed that it’s a cure for COVID-19.

The news was met with skepticism from some quarters who, cognizant of the rigorous and time consuming process by which comprehensive clinical trials are conducted and new drugs are innovated, felt that the drug being touted by Patanjali Ayurveda did not meet those standards.

Soon enough the AYUSH Ministry of the Government of India issued a statement denying any knowledge of the scientific study claimed by Ramdev’s Patanjali and said that advertisement of any such medicine is covered under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

In response Patanjali Ayurveda doubled down on its assertion claiming that it was merely a “communication gap” with the government authorities, and further stated that they had in fact received approvals from Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI) for the Clinical Trials and that they had conducted the study with NIMS Jaipur.

Separately, the License Officer of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Department released a statement that they only approved a license for immunity booster, cough and fever and not as a cure for COVID-19.

Guidelines for development of Ayurveda drugs:

The AYUSH ministry in 2018 had issued detailed guidelines for clinical research in the Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathic systems. The AYUSH Ministry, in its notification of 21 April, sought to plug the gap in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which do not provide specific procedures for conducting clinical trials in Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Homoeopathy drugs.

The ministry declared that the clinical trials for new drugs in these systems for COVID-19 would have to be conducted as per the AYUSH guidelines or guidelines of the ICMR.

While it remains to be seen as to whether Patanjali Ayurveda can substantiate its claim on successful clinical trials and the approvals, it is important to consider what the effect of a false advertisement could be in legal terms.

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 did not originally contemplate the regulation of Ayurvedic medicines. It is only by the insertion of Chapter IVA in the Act (with effect from 1969) that some regulatory arrangements for AYUSH medicines were made.

Ramdev and the Coronil claim: Patanjali treading on thin legal ice, but enforcement gaps might let yoga guru get away with COVID drugFile image of Ramdev, owner of Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd, who claimed that his company has found the cure for COVID-19.
Section 33E of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act deems an ayurvedic drug to be “misbranded” if the label, container or anything accompanying the drug contains a false claim about the drug and the sale of such misbranded drugs is prohibited. Sale of a misbranded drug or a drug without a valid license is punishable by imprisonment up to one year.

Drugs and Magic Remedies Act

Section 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act prohibits the publication of any advertisement which makes a false claim for the drug or gives a false impression about the true character of the drug. Contravention of this section is punishable by imprisonment of up to six months the first time the person is held guilty and up to one year for each subsequent conviction.

Efficacy of the legislation’s

The track record of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act has been sketchy at best.

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 95th report in 2016 identified two major weaknesses in the enforcement system of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act in the context of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, and Homoeopathic medicines.

First, the licensing authority at the level of the states was stated to be weak. Second, there was no definition of a new drug. As a result, the only requirement for granting license for a new drug was the production of proof of safety and efficacy of a drug which could even be an article on the efficacy of the drug. It is to remedy this situation that the AYUSH ministry formulated the new guidelines mentioned above.

The Committee also recommended further amendments to the Drugs and Magic remedies act, to enhance the powers under the Act, to make it more effective. While a draft amendment bill had been published in February 2020, enhancing the punishment to two years and making other changes has not yet been enacted and brought into effect.

In this scenario, Patanjali Ayurved is treading on thin legal ice with regard to the true effect of the drug compared to what is claimed. Considering the widespread adverse impact that could result from reliance upon an ineffective drug during a deadly pandemic, the question also arises as to whether the usual standard of approval of new drugs is sufficient for the present situation or whether a different standard has to be adopted despite the urgent need for a remedy.

CBI files first charge sheet in Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor, daughter and DHFL promoters for fraud

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday filed its first charge sheet in the Yes Bank case against eight entities including founder Rana Kapoor and his family members. The other accused include Dewan Housing Finance Ltd and promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan, said a CBI spokesperson in a statement.

The case involves the bank allegedly extending high value loans to select borrowers in-lieu of personal gratification. The charges against these entities in 100 page chargesheet involves cheating, fraud, conspiracy, corruption and violation of lending norms.

The agency has alleged that Rana Kapoor entered into a criminal conspiracy with Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan for extending high value loans to DHFL in return for substantial undue benefits to himself and his family members through companies held by them.

CBI had filed a case in the scam on 7 March which stated that between April and June 2018 Yes Bank invested ₹3,700 crore in short-term debentures of the scam-hit DHFL. In return, the Wadhawans allegedly ‘paid kickbacks of ₹600 crore’ to former Yes Bank CEO Rana Kapoor and his family members in the form of loans to Doit Urban Ventures Ltd.

Searches were conducted on 9 March on the premises of Kapoor family members. The Wadhawans who were arrested by CBI in April and are currently in the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED).

On 6 May ED had filed a chargesheet in the Yes Bank on charges of money laundering. The agency estimated the size of fraudulent deals at ₹5,050 crore.

After Yes Bank failed to raise enough money to stay afloat, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had seized the lender on 5 March; Kapoor was arrested three days later, suspecting irregularities in loans granted to DHFL. On 13 March, RBI got a clutch of public and private sector banks to rescue the private lender.

Journalist Amish Devgan moves Supreme Court to quash FIR lodged against him for insulting Sufi saint, calls it an “inadvertent error”

The petition, which will be head on June 26, states that Devgan had “no intention” to hurt any religious sentiment, and thus the FIR should be quashed.

Journalist Amish Devgan has moved Supreme Court urging it to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him for hurting religious sentiments by referring to Sufi saint Moinuddin Chisti in derogatory terms.

AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari
The petition to be heard on June 26 by a Vacation Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari states that Devgan had “no intention” to hurt any religious sentiment, and thus the FIR should be quashed.

On his June 15 news show, Devgan had used the term ‘Lootera Chisti’ (‘Christi the robber’), inviting furious reactions from the Muslim community throughout the country.

The news anchor made the comment during a debate on a PIL about the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act on his show ‘Aar Par’. He had allegedly called Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, better known as Khwaja Ghreeb Nawaz, an “attacker” and a “looter”.

According to the Pydhonie (Mumbai) Police, in reaction to Devgan’s statements, a complaint was received from the Raza Academy. The police then recorded a statement from Raza Academy General Secretary Arif Razvi, and registered the FIR.

The petition filed through Advocates Mrinal Bharti and Vivek Jain prays for an interim stay on the investigation against Devgan, and for the FIRs filed against him to be quashed, as it is a “small issue”.

The petition primarily states that the FIRs against Devgan would stifle freedom of speech and expression of journalists, as the reference to Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti as a “lootera” was an “inadvertent error” committed during a heated debate segment.

Devgan also argues that there is no mens rea or intention made out in the case.

Further, after his show, Devgan had tweeted and issued an apology stating that he had mistakenly referred to ‘Khilji’ as ‘Chishti’, and said that he also has visited the Dargah for the saint’s blessings.

Later, another FIR was registered against the journalist by the Nanded police under Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting reli­gious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code.

Devgan, in his plea also seeks consolidation of FIRs and transfer of the case to any court in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Class X, XII Board exams cancelled; optional Class XII exams may be held when COVID-19 situation improves: CBSE to Supreme Court-

Taking a cue from the CBSE’s stand, the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) also said that it would cancel this year’s Board exams.

The Supreme Court was informed today that this year’s Class X and XII Board exams held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) stand cancelled as a result of the rising number of COVID-19 cases across the country.

The Court was, however, was also apprised that optional Class XII exams may be conducted when the situation improves. Students who opt out of taking these exams will be assessed on the basis of previous exams.

Taking a cue from the CBSE’s stand, the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) also said that it would cancel this year’s Board exams.

A three-judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna was hearing a plea seeking the cancellation of this year’s CBSE exams, filed by the parents of students scheduled to appear for their Class XII Board exams in July.

At the outset of today’s hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Rishi Malhotra, stated that Maharashtra, Delhi and Odisha have indicated their ability to conduct CBSE exams this year.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made it clear that the affidavit filed by CBSE today states that the Class X and XII Board exams scheduled for July 1 stand cancelled.

Mehta further elaborated that CBSE has a scheme by which marks scored in the past three exams will be taken into account. He also stated that Class XII exams would be conducted “as soon as situation is conducive.” Further,

“Marks for students who opt for Class XII exams will have that marks as final.”

Those who opt out of the exams that might be held in the future, will be assessed according to the exams they took in the past.

It was also made clear that the Class X board exams were cancelled, and that there would be no optional exams for Class X students.

The Bench, however, asked the CBSE to clarify its stance in the reply filed before the Court. Calling for clarity, Justice Khanwilkar said,

“If you see the dates, you will hold exams for Class 12 sometime. So dates for other exams need to be postponed.”

To this, SG Mehta replied,

“Admissions now will be only on the basis of the assessment. They can apply on the basis of assessment.”

Mehta added that the result on the basis of the assessment of both Class X and XII students will be published by July 15.