The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected a petition seeking to restrain the government from declaring the result of the IIT Joint Entrance Examination 2010 Wednesday.<\/p>\n
The court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL), calling it a stunt and a publicity venture.<\/p>\n
The vacation bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi and comprising Justice C.K. Prasad said: \u201cThe petitioner had neither the locus (standi) nor is there any justification for allowing him to intermeddle in the matter.\u201d<\/p>\n
Petitioner Chetan Upadhyaya, who claims to be a journalist, is secretary of Satya Foundation. He sought to restrain the human resource development ministry from declaring the result Wednesday.<\/p>\n
Justice Singhvi said that \u201cno court can play with the career of young students who are aspiring to join engineering and other courses in IITs\u201d.<\/p>\n
The court repeated that the petitioner had \u201cno locus (standi) or prima facie case for the grant of stay of the declaration of the result\u201d.<\/p>\n
The court wondered if the petitioner realized the kind and magnitude of harm the students would suffer if the result was stayed.<\/p>\n
Justice Singhvi asked: \u201cWhat will happen if (as a consequence) some students commit suicide?\u201d<\/p>\n
The court said normally it would have dismissed the petition with exemplary cost running into five figures. But since the petitioner was a young man and apparently misguided, he was being let off lightly.<\/p>\n
However, the court said that if the petitioner was again found indulging in such publicity centric petitions, he would attract huge costs.<\/p>\n
The court also told counsel for the petitioner to be more \u201ccircumspect and discreet\u201d in filing such petitions in the disposal of which substantial time of the court is spent.<\/p>\n
The bench said that it was accountable to the people and every second the Supreme Court spends involves costs.<\/p>\n
The petition said the instruction manual issued to examinees along with the question paper differed for the students who took the exam in English medium and those who took the exam in Hindi medium.<\/p>\n
Section 4 of Paper II of JEE had 48 marks for those who appeared in English and just 18 for those who took it in Hindi. Thus the difference in the aggregate marks of both the medium was 30 marks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected a petition seeking to restrain the government from declaring the result of the IIT Joint Entrance Examination 2010 Wednesday. The court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL), calling it a stunt and a publicity venture. The vacation bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi and comprising Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-top-law-news"],"yoast_head":"\n