Bengal shines...

Development Studies from NIT Rourkela (Gold Medalist).

Rimita Saha, who secured an all

India rank 566, has done B.Tech in Electrical Engineering from NIT Durgapur (Gold Medalist) and M.Tech in Power Systems from Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi while Paramita Malakar who ranked 812 has done B.Sc Hons in Physics from Seth Anandram Jaipuria College under Calcutta University.

Md. Burhan Zaman who ranked

822 has done his B.Tech in Aerospace Engineering from Indian Institute of Engineering, Science and Technology, Shibpur. Among these seven students , Rimita Saha and Bratati Dutta, owing to the category they belong to, are expected to get IAS and IPS, respectively.

About 66 students of SNTCSSC had cleared UPSC CSE 2023 prelims. Around 16 candidates from SNTCSSC had appeared for the UPSC CSE 2023 Personality Test and ultimately 7 of them made it to the final list.

Sources said another two candidates from the Hills are also in the list of successful candidates. Jayashree Pradhan has ranked 52 while Ajay Moktan bagged 494 rank.

SNTCSSC, an initiative of the Bengal government, aims to extend its reach to instil confidence in every aspirant all across the state, including districts and rural areas so that sincere and capable students of Bengal can be a part of a highly competitive examination like the UPSC CSE.

“If you are thinking that your lawyer has given an apology, we have not made up our minds yet whether to accept your apology,” it said.

The bench got irked when Balkrishna, the managing director of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, said Ramdev has nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the firm.

“You are again adamant on your stand,” Justice Amanullah told Balkrishna, adding that the apology does not appear to be coming from the heart.

Rohatgi told the court at the very outset that they are willing to make a public apology.

“I had made a suggestion that I am willing to make a public apology to show contrition and to tell the public that it is not only that I am doing some lip service to the court,” he said.

“Ask your clients to step forward,” Justice Kohli said, gesturing the duo to move closer to the bench. “Let us hear what they have to say,” she said.

The bench told them there are many medical streams like Ayurved, Yoga, allopathy and Unani in India and the public uses them all. It said calling one stream bad and should be done away with is not correct.

Ramdev told the bench that such conflicts between two streams of medicine have existed for quite some time and his intention was not to disrespect allopathy.

Ramdev and Balkrishna had earlier tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products.

In two separate affidavits filed in the court, they had tendered unqualified apology for the “breach of the statement” recorded in the November 21 last year order of the apex court.

Non-observance of the specific assurances made to the court and subsequent media statements by the duo had irked the bench, which later issued notice asking them to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.

While hearing the matter on April 10, the court had refused to accept their affidavits tendering unconditional apology and came down hard on the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for its inaction on the misleading advertisements issue.

box. He also sought reversal of the poll panel’s decision to replace the transparent glass on VVPAT machines with an opaque glass through which a voter can see the slip only when the light is on for seven seconds.

He alleged that two public sector undertakings--Bharat Electronic

Ltd and Electronics Corporation of

India Ltd (ECILL)--have as its directors people who are associated with ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

The bench asked Singh whether it is possible to subject EVMs to technical evaluation to rule out any foul play after the counting of votes is over.

Singh urged the court to not indicate any such thing without hearing the poll panel on the issue as it would create unnecessary confusion.

“Don’t be apprehensive. We are not indicating any such thing but are only soliciting a response,” Justice Khanna told Singh.

The bench also asked the poll panel to apprise it about the punishment prescribed under the law for someone who manipulates EVMs.

“If some manipulation is done, then what is the consequence? What is the punishment prescribed under the law? Tell us. This is a very serious thing because there should be some fear of the consequences,” the court told Singh.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for activist Arun Kumar Agrawal, who has sought a complete count of VVPAT slips in polls, submitted there should not be even an iota of doubt about the electoral process and the Election Commission should ensure that.

He claimed after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, a parliamentary committee had found discrepancies in EVM data but the Election Commission never responded to the panel.

“There are very high chances of error. We always blame the population for everything including the number of cases clogging our judicial system. We should focus on the system so that there is no iota of doubt in the mind of even a single voter,” he said.

During the nearly two-hour-long hearing, several advocates appearing for different petitioners addressed the court, with some suggesting use of bar codes to reduce chances of manipulation of EVMs. One of them claimed conflict of interest on part of members of the technical committee of the election commission, saying they were the inventors and designers of the EVMs.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would resume on April 18.

The seven-phase Lok Sabha polls will begin on April 19.

The ADR has sought matching the count in EVMs with votes that have been verifiably “recorded as cast” and to ensure that the voter is able to verify through VVPAT slip that his vote, as recorded on the paper slip, has been “counted as recorded”.

Nizam Pasha, representing the petitioners, acknowledged it had not been mentioned.

Senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, representing a state, pointed out that the writ petition specifically claims Muslim men are lynched, omitting other religious groups.

“The sought relief cannot be religion-specific,” she contended.

Pasha maintained that societal realities and incidents targeting specific communities are admissible in court.

The bench urged Dave to maintain composure in her arguments, emphasising, “Let’s not delve into religion-based incidents. We should concentrate on the broader issue.”

The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing post-summer vacation, instructing states to submit their responses on steps to prevent mob lynching.

Previously, on July 28, the court consented to hear a plea addressing the “disturbing” surge in lynching and violence against Muslims, despite the court’s explicit 2018 guidelines concerning cow vigilantes.

The plea seeks a mandamus writ compelling state authorities to act immediately as per the court’s findings and directives in the Tehseen Poonawalla case to effectively manage the situation.

The 2018 ruling tasked states with the primary responsibility to prevent any form of vigilantism and provided guidelines for handling such events.