- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
The Supreme Court today rejected a review petition filed by six states – against its order allowing the centre to hold the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) in September.The states of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Rajasthan had appealed before the Court on August 28 seeking a postponement of the examinations...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court today rejected a review petition filed by six states – against its order allowing the centre to hold the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) in September.
The states of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Rajasthan had appealed before the Court on August 28 seeking a postponement of the examinations in view of the Coronavirus crisis.
The Supreme Court bench of Ashok Bhushan, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari refused to entertain the plea and said that crucial year of students “cannot be wasted” and “life has to go on”, Supreme Court had said in its earlier order dismissing students’ petition to postpone the exams.
The petitioners had argued that grave and irreparable harm and injury would befall the student community impacting the health, safety and welfare of the students appearing for the exams.
The National Testing Agency has taken several steps to conduct the crucial exam safely such as increasing the number of examination centres, alternate seating plans, fewer candidates per room and staggered entry and exit, among others.