In a significant ruling that could influence the interpretation of India's fertility laws, the Calcutta High Court has permitted a 49-year-old woman to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF) under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, even though her husband is 57 years old—two years above the statutory age limit prescribed for men.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a woman's eligibility for assisted reproductive treatment should not automatically be denied because of her spouse's age, particularly where donor gametes are being used and the husband has no direct physical role in the treatment.

What the Court Held

Justice Krishna Rao ruled that the woman's eligibility under the ART Act should be assessed independently.

The court observed that in the proposed IVF procedure, the husband would have no physical involvement because the treatment would use donor gametes obtained through a registered ART bank. Therefore, his age alone should not become an obstacle to the woman exercising her reproductive rights.

The court directed the hospital to proceed with the IVF treatment in accordance with applicable legal and medical requirements.

Reliance on Earlier Precedent

In reaching its decision, the High Court relied on its earlier judgment in the 2024 Shyamoli Saha case, where similar relief had been granted despite the husband exceeding the prescribed age limit.

Justice Rao observed that while age restrictions under the ART Act were introduced to prevent misuse and regulate assisted reproductive technologies, those provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats the very purpose of the legislation.

The judgment also interpreted the definition of "patient" under the ART Act to mean that an individual partner may seek assisted reproductive services independently, provided the statutory requirements applicable to that individual are satisfied.

Background of the Case

The couple, married since 2014, had reportedly struggled with infertility for several years.

They approached the High Court after a hospital declined to provide IVF treatment because the husband had crossed the maximum age of 55 years prescribed under Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act.

According to their counsel, both spouses were medically fit for treatment, and the husband's age was the sole reason for the refusal.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the ART Act expressly prescribes upper age limits for both men and women seeking assisted reproductive treatment.

Why the Judgment Matters

The ruling could have important implications for fertility treatment in India.

It suggests that, in certain circumstances, one partner's statutory ineligibility may not necessarily prevent the other from accessing assisted reproductive technologies, particularly where the treatment method does not require that partner's biological participation.

Legal experts believe the judgment may encourage ART clinics to examine applications more carefully rather than adopting a blanket interpretation of age-related provisions.

However, the decision is based on the facts of this specific case and does not automatically remove the age limits prescribed under the ART Act for all applicants. Broader changes to the legal framework would require either legislative amendments or further judicial clarification.

Balancing Regulation and Reproductive Autonomy

The judgment reflects the continuing effort of Indian courts to balance regulatory safeguards governing assisted reproductive technologies with individuals' reproductive autonomy.

As demand for fertility treatments continues to rise, the ruling is likely to become an important reference point in future cases involving the interpretation of age eligibility under the ART Act, particularly where questions of reproductive rights and access to medical treatment intersect.

A student who withdrew from a Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) programme just six days after admission has secured major relief from the Calcutta High Court, which directed a private dental college to refund ₹9.5 lakh and return all her original academic certificates.

The court ruled that educational institutions cannot retain students' original documents to compel payment of disputed fees, reinforcing the protection available under the UGC Fee Refund Policy 2024 and previous Supreme Court judgments.

Why the student left the MDS course

Dr Sreeparna Ghosh had enrolled in the MDS programme in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research through the management quota in August 2024.

She paid approximately ₹9.5 lakh, including tuition, admission and student activity fees, and submitted her original educational documents, including her BDS degree, mark sheets, registration certificate, domicile certificate and internship completion certificate.

However, after attending classes for only six days, she decided to discontinue the programme, alleging that the institute lacked adequate educational facilities and proper academic guidance necessary for her professional growth.

On September 10, 2024, she formally sought withdrawal and requested both a fee refund and the return of her original certificates.

College allegedly demanded ₹18 lakh before releasing documents

According to the petition, the institute refused to return her documents unless she paid the remaining ₹18 lakh course fee, citing a discontinuation bond signed during admission.

The student argued that withholding her original certificates prevented her from practising dentistry or pursuing higher education elsewhere, leaving her career at a standstill.

High Court cites UGC refund policy and Supreme Court rulings

Justice Krishna Rao rejected the institute's contention that UGC fee refund guidelines did not apply to dental colleges.

Referring to the UGC Fee Refund Policy issued on June 12, 2024, the court observed that students cancelling admission before September 30, 2024, are entitled to a full fee refund. Since Dr Ghosh applied for withdrawal on September 10, the court held that she qualified for a complete refund.

The court also clarified that even if an institution believes money is recoverable under a discontinuation bond, it cannot withhold original educational documents to enforce payment. Any financial dispute must instead be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings.

Court directs refund and return of certificates

Allowing the petition, the Calcutta High Court directed the Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research to:

• Refund the entire ₹9.5 lakh paid by the student.
• Return all original academic certificates and testimonials.
• Complete both actions within two weeks of receiving the court order.

Why the judgment matters

The ruling reinforces an important principle for students across India: educational institutions cannot use original academic certificates as leverage in fee disputes. The judgment also strengthens the practical implementation of the UGC Fee Refund Policy 2024, ensuring that students who withdraw within the prescribed period are protected from arbitrary financial demands and document retention.

In a significant ruling that highlights the continuing importance of physical classrooms in higher education, the Madras High Court has held that artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT cannot substitute the role of qualified teachers in imparting knowledge, ethics and professional values to students.

The judgment came while the court was hearing a case related to attendance requirements for law students and has reignited the debate on the role of technology in education, particularly as institutions increasingly adopt digital learning platforms.

A division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar observed that while technological advancements and online learning resources can support education, they cannot replace the dynamic and interactive environment of a classroom. The judges stressed that professional education, especially legal studies, involves much more than the transfer of academic information.

According to the court, qualified lecturers play a crucial role in shaping students' character, integrity, morality and professional ethics—qualities that cannot be effectively taught through artificial intelligence systems or virtual platforms alone. The bench noted that classroom discussions, debates and exchanges of diverse viewpoints help students develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of constitutional values and social responsibilities.

"Artificial intelligence tools may assist learning, but they cannot replicate the human interaction and mentorship essential to legal education," the court observed while underscoring the importance of regular classroom engagement.

The ruling came in the context of a dispute over attendance requirements prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The court upheld Rule 12 of the BCI Legal Education Rules, which mandates a minimum attendance of 70 per cent for law students. The rules permit relaxation up to 65 per cent only under exceptional circumstances.

The division bench set aside an earlier order of a single judge that had allowed students with significantly lower attendance to appear for examinations. The court maintained that existing regulations must be strictly followed unless they are formally amended by the competent authority.

The case involved three students of Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University whose attendance records ranged between 37 per cent and 46 per cent. Due to inadequate attendance, the university had barred them from appearing in semester examinations and directed them to repeat the academic year.

Earlier, a single judge had granted relief to the students and recommended that the Bar Council reconsider its attendance norms in light of changing educational practices. However, the university challenged the order before the division bench, arguing that attendance regulations are essential to maintaining academic standards and professional discipline.

Allowing the university's appeal, the High Court reinstated the original attendance requirements and emphasised that students who regularly attend classes should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to those who fail to meet prescribed academic obligations.

The judgment arrives at a time when the issue of mandatory attendance is under national scrutiny. The Supreme Court is currently examining the broader question of attendance requirements in higher education after staying a Delhi High Court order that had restrained institutions from debarring students from examinations on the basis of low attendance.

Legal experts believe the Madras High Court's decision could influence the ongoing national debate by reinforcing the view that attendance remains a critical component of professional education. The ruling underscores the judiciary's recognition that while technology can enhance learning, the classroom continues to be central to developing competent, ethical and socially responsible professionals.

As educational institutions increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into teaching and learning processes, the judgment serves as a reminder that technology is best viewed as a supplement rather than a replacement for human educators and face-to-face academic engagement.

A representation seeking the postponement of the NEET UG 2026 re-examination, scheduled for June 21, has been submitted on behalf of 1,467 aspirants by Supreme Court advocate Vineet Jindal. The plea argues that students should not be made to suffer the consequences of circumstances beyond their control.

Sharing details of the representation on social media platform X, Jindal stated that aspirants are facing significant uncertainty, anxiety, and disruption due to the developments surrounding the examination.

According to the representation, many candidates who performed well in the original examination feel unfairly affected, as they are being required to reappear despite having no connection to the alleged irregularities that led to the re-test.

The plea further notes that a large number of students had already concluded their preparation cycle and were preparing for the next stages of the admission process, including counselling and seat allocation. The requirement to appear for another examination at short notice has reportedly placed them under renewed academic and psychological pressure.

The representation highlights concerns raised by students regarding increased stress levels, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and difficulties concentrating as they resume preparation for the examination.

Special attention has also been drawn to candidates from rural and remote regions, who may face logistical challenges related to travel, accommodation, and other arrangements required to appear for the re-examination.

Seeking relief for the affected aspirants, Jindal has requested that the examination be postponed by at least one month and that a revised schedule be announced with sufficient advance notice to ensure fairness and equal opportunity for all candidates.

The National Testing Agency is currently scheduled to conduct the NEET UG 2026 re-examination on June 21, with test centres planned across 551 cities in India and 14 cities abroad.

The matter has added another dimension to the ongoing debate over maintaining examination integrity while safeguarding the interests and mental well-being of students affected by disruptions in the admission process.

Over 22,000 applicants compete for 4,000 seats across School of Excellence in Law, government law colleges, and government quota seats in private institutions; online counselling to follow.

The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University is expected to release the merit list for admissions to its five-year integrated law programmes later this week, paving the way for online counselling and seat allotment for the 2026-27 academic session.

University officials said the rank list is being prepared based on candidates' aggregate scores in four Class XII subjects, excluding languages. Following the publication of the merit list, allotment orders will be issued and certificate verification is expected to be completed by the fourth week of June.

The admissions process covers the prestigious School of Excellence in Law (SOEL), government law colleges across Tamil Nadu, and government quota seats in private law colleges.

The School of Excellence in Law has attracted significant interest this year, receiving around 6,700 applications for its 600 seats. The institution offers integrated honours programmes including BA LLB, BCom LLB, BBA LLB and BCA LLB.

To be eligible for admission to the School of Excellence in Law, general category candidates must have secured a minimum of 70 per cent marks in Class XII examinations, while candidates belonging to SC and ST categories require at least 60 per cent.

Meanwhile, government law colleges and government quota seats in private law colleges have received nearly 16,000 applications for a total of 3,400 seats, including 2,503 seats in government law colleges and 897 government quota seats in private institutions.

For these colleges, the minimum eligibility requirement is 45 per cent marks in Class XII for general category candidates and 40 per cent for SC and ST applicants.

University officials noted that application numbers remain largely consistent with previous years, reflecting sustained demand for legal education in the state.

The university had invited applications between May 18 and June 5. Officials have also confirmed that notifications for admissions to three-year LLB programmes and postgraduate LLM courses will be announced separately at a later date.

All counselling and admission-related procedures for the integrated law programmes will be conducted online.

Thousands of CBSE students in Gulf countries face uncertainty as pending Class 12 improvement results threaten university admissions; Centre explores a region-wide solution.

The Supreme Court has granted the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) additional time to formulate a policy for students in West Asia whose Class 12 results remain pending following examination disruptions caused by regional conflict.

The matter came up for hearing on June 13 in a petition filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, a Saudi Arabia-based student whose Class 12 improvement examination result has not yet been declared. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Union government is examining the issue comprehensively and considering a broader policy framework that could apply to all similarly affected students across Gulf countries.

Taking note of the government's submission, the Supreme Court agreed to defer the matter and scheduled the next hearing for June 22, allowing CBSE and the Centre time to finalise their approach.

The delay has created significant anxiety among students seeking admission to universities in India and abroad. Many affected candidates have found their results marked as “Result Later,” leaving them uncertain about their final scores at a crucial stage in the admission cycle. Several universities have continued with admissions despite the pending results, forcing students to make difficult decisions about accepting existing offers or waiting for revised marks.

The issue stems from the cancellation of certain CBSE Class 12 examinations in Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates earlier this year amid escalating tensions involving Iran, Israel and the United States. To address the disruption, CBSE introduced a special assessment scheme on March 27 under which regular students received marks based on school assessments and periodic examinations.

However, private candidates faced unique challenges because many lacked school-based academic records that could be used for alternative evaluation. As a result, some students were left without declared results, leading to legal intervention.

CBSE has cited difficulties in assessing private candidates fairly under the existing framework, while the Centre has indicated that a uniform policy may be developed to protect the academic interests of all affected students.

The outcome of the case is expected to have implications not only for students in West Asia but also for the broader debate on how examination authorities respond to disruptions caused by international crises and emergencies.