AICLET

Chief Minister's Instruction on Teacher Eligibility Test

On Tuesday, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath directed the Basic Education Department to move a review petition before the Supreme Court's order making the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) compulsory for existing teachers. He stressed that the state teachers are trained and experienced and have been regularly trained by the government, and therefore it was not right to ignore their experience and years of service.

The Chief Minister's office posted on social media that Yogi Adityanath has ordered the department to appeal the order of the Supreme Court that the TET requirement should be applied to existing teachers. He reaffirmed that the teachers of the state are experienced professionals who had been trained from time to time by the government, and their qualifications and tenure should not be overlooked.

Over the last five days, two teachers in Uttar Pradesh, aged between their forties and fifties, ended their lives under tragic circumstances. Sources indicate they were under pressure to pass the TET and that they could not handle it. Their kin state that the anxiety of preparing for the TET was the reason behind their misery.

On September 1, 2025, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Augustine George Masih held that all government school teachers with over five years' experience have to clear the TET, or else they have to resign or be compulsorily retired. The ruling was given in the context of teacher appointment cases heard in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra but has countrywide implications and will affect almost a million teachers, with some 200,000 in Uttar Pradesh alone.

In an attempt to bring an end to suicides among students in the country's universities, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the UGC to keep in mind — within two months — while preparing the draft mechanism to effectively deal with ragging, sexual harassment, and caste, gender, disability, and other forms of discrimination.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was listening to a bunch of PILs brought by Rohit Vemula's mother Radhika Vemula and A Salim Tadvi, mother of Payal Tadvi, against caste-based discrimination in institutions of higher learning.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the University Grants Commission (UGC) to take into consideration the recommendations and opinions of Vemula and Tadvi students' mothers, who were alleged to have taken their own lives after being harassed on the basis of their caste in their respective campuses.

It is worth noting that Vemula, a PhD student at Hyderabad Central University, died on 17th January 2016 and Tadvi, an exam student at TN Topiwala National Medical College, died on 22nd May 2019 following alleged discrimination by three doctors at her college.

The Centre's Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, cleared to the court on Monday that the draft rules had been circulated and an expert committee had scrutinized more than 300 objections received.

Mehta's arguments were noted by the bench since the law officer contended that a lot of effective provisions regarding measures to counter ragging and other aspects such as caste prejudices were elaborated.

"These are exclusion of discriminatory behavior, provisions of non-segregation such as exclusion to institutions of higher learning to allocate hostels, classrooms or batches of practice/laboratory based on the rank of admission or performance in academics, and exclusion from public display of merit lists or segregation based on the rank on the campus, and excluding rank-based buddy systems for academic support, which have a tendency to marginalize students from disadvantaged groups," he added further.

In earlier April, the apex court had exempted the UGC to issue the draft regulations 2025, which address ragging, sexual harassment, and caste, gender, disability, among other prejudices in institutions of higher learning.

In PIL on caste discrimination in higher educational institutions, the Supreme Court had previously requested UGC to provide details regarding the number of Central, state, deemed, and private universities and higher educational institutions that have established Equal Opportunity Cells and complaints received under UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, and action taken reports.

The petitioners had approached the top court to prevent caste discrimination in universities and higher educational institutions.

The plea made by mothers of Vemula and Tadvi had sought apt directions from the top court to initiate effective steps to prevent caste discrimination in varsities and higher educational institutions.

The petition also requested that orders be issued to each university and higher learning institution to put on their website all the steps for the eradication of caste discrimination and procedure.

The petition claimed that there have been instances of discrimination based on caste some times. It also said in their appeal that immediate orders and instructions be issued not to practice caste-based discrimination in universities and institutes of higher learning.

On Tuesday, the supreme court dismissed a petition seeking restoration of lord vishnu’s idol  at  Javari Temple, which is the part of UNESCO Khajuraho complex in MP. Rakesh Dalal, a hindu devotee filed the petition   asking the court to direct the authorities to either restore or re-install the 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu which was allegedly defaced during the time of invasions.  

During the hearing of this case, the bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petitioner’s argument of repeated requests to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and how the central government had yielded no action. The ASI’s official response stated that while the conservation of Khajuraho temples is their responsibility, replacing a historic idol with a new one is not permitted under current archaeological rules.

Refusing to entertain the matter further, the CJI B.R. Gavai termed the petition to be a 'Publicity Interest Litigation'.  In the words of CJI, "This is purely publicity interest litigation…. Go and ask the deity himself to do something. You are saying that you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu,so go and pray now."

"It's an archaeological find; it’s the ASI to determine whether such a thing is to be done or not…” the CJI highlighted. “In the meantime, if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can go and worship there - there is a very big linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho,” he added. 

Concisely, the supreme court suggested that devotees are free to pray at the site and even at other prominent idols at Khajuraho, such as its renowned Shiva linga. The request was dismissed and the court emphasised that such a decision of restoring or reconstructing archaeological findings lies under the jurisdiction of the archaeological board and not the court. 

While covering this news, edinbox found that the words of CJI Gavai are being interpreted negatively due to the boldness of his sentence, however, many real devotees including ISKCON members who understand the theological concept of advait, vishnu, and idol worship are not taking offense yet, especially after the recent movie ‘Mahavatar Narsimha; conveyed the deep message of Vishnu Worship and devotion. 

This vishnu idol restoration case is said to highlight the harmony that courts and conservation authorities maintain between the respect of faith and the protection of historical heritage of India. Restoration or reconstruction of ancient idols in protected sites requires the approval of the ASI and must comply with international conservation standards. The Supreme Court made it clear that issues involving the repair or installation of archaeological finds should be handled by experts, not through judicial orders. 

For devotees and visitors, worship at Khajuraho’s UNESCO-recognised temples remains open. The ruling highlights how significant is the need to adhere to the right channels of heritage management while also acknowledging religious sentiments. 

V. Sivankutty, the education minister of Kerala on Monday informed that the state government would approach court against the Supreme Court ruling making the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) compulsory for all in-service teachers of Classes 1 to 8 in non-minority schools.

The Supreme Court, on September 1, 2025, in its judgment, said that teachers who had been appointed before the RTE Act, 2009, came into force would also need to clear the TET to continue in service and be eligible for promotions.

According to Minister Sivankutty, this order can influence nearly 50,000 teachers in Kerala. He stated, "The order will make appointments and promotions difficult for most of the teachers. The associations of teachers have raised concerns, arguing that retrospective implementation of TET is unfair to veteran teachers."

Sivankutty explained that since education is a Concurrent List topic of the Indian Constitution, the central acts override. The Kerala government has decided to approach the Supreme Court again either by petitioning for review or seeking clarification regarding the implementation of the order.

Teachers with less than five years of service remaining can be permitted to continue until retirement but would not be eligible for promotion without clearing the TET. Teachers with service exceeding five years have a period of two years within which they must clear the TET. Failure in this will result in compulsory retirement but terminal benefits shall be provided.
The order draws its legitimacy from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and its 2017 amendment, as well as from the 2010 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) notification which prescribes standard norms of teachers' qualifications.

While acknowledging that the verdict would appear severe on teachers who have spent their entire career for many decades, the top court upheld that the enforcement of minimum qualifications is unavoidable in order to ensure quality education. Minister Sivankutty added further, "The judgment will have far-reaching implications across the country, impacting lakhs of teachers working in government, aided, and private schools."

Sivankutty further claimed that whenever the qualifications of teachers were revised in Kerala, for example, those of the primary and language teachers, existing staff were given safeguard. He criticized both the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments for failing to do the same when they enforced TET norms.

Delhi University (DU) told the Delhi High Court on Friday that student contestants for the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections do not have to deposit ₹1 lakh, as required under its August 8 notice.

On behalf of the university, advocate Rupal Mohinder moved in front of justice Mini Pushkarna that nominees would now have to pay only an affidavit and a security bond while submitting nominations.

The move was proposed by way of a petition challenging the varsity's August 8 notice calling for election candidates to produce a ₹1 lakh bond. The notice had been issued by the varsity to prevent vandalism around and inside the university, for the September 18 polls and to prevent the situation last year when university and public property were vandalized during the DUSU polls.

Observing DU's submission, the top court rejected a plea by two candidates, one of them Anjali, and Abhishek Kumar, both belonging to rural backgrounds, who argued that the provision was against their constitutional rights.

Their petition, filed by lawyer Raja Choudhary, argued that the condition was arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14 because it effectively excluded rural and middle-class students from contesting. It also argued that the rule violated the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which place joint liability for defacement, and exceeded the registrar's jurisdiction. "The impugned clause defeats the democratic essence of student unions, turning elections into an elitist forum, against judicial instructions for democratization," the petition further stated.

The elections had been conducted a year ago on September 27, 2024, but the vandalism on a large scale caused a lag of nearly two months in counting and declaration of the results following an order by the Delhi High Court to take down all graffiti and posters.

The August 8 notification had caused outrage as well, with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) submitting an earlier this month memorandum against the need for a ₹1 lakh bond. The organization demanded its withdrawal immediately and warned of a massive campus movement in case the provision was not withdrawn.

The Indian government is implementing AI (artificial intelligence) in the courts to support judges and speed up routine cases like minor crimes, traffic offences, and land disputes, without replacing human decision-making.

AI in Indian Courts: What’s Changing

The biggest hurdle to Indian courts is that, as of July 2025, the number of pending cases is 5.29 crore, and just under 4.65 crore in district courts alone. To address this, AI-driven robo-judges are being used to perform data-intensive jobs. These software applications can quickly crunch case information, compare previous verdicts, summarise documents, make predictions, and aid in sorting out information, allowing judges to concentrate on the essential areas of law.

Human Judges are in Control.

AI will not replace judges. Instead, it is an intelligent assistant that simplifies paperwork and legal research. However, all final decisions remain in the hands of human judges. The unofficial norms, such as the new rules established by the Kerala High Court, clarify that AI is a helpful tool that cannot independently make or comprehend legal decisions.

How is Training Being Done?

Specialised training is also underway to help district and sessions court judges use AI tools effectively; more than 3,000 courtrooms in 8 states already participate in training. Some judges have travelled to Singapore to attend advanced courses, having studied in other countries such as Estonia and China, where AI in the courts has already been successfully introduced. Programmes are run with help from the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), which focuses on teaching ethical AI use and international best practices..  

Effects and Value

Already, AI applications are proving to reduce pending cases by 15-20% and accelerate case processing by approximately 30% in cities such as Bengaluru, Delhi, and Mumbai.

Tools such as SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal Assistance in Court Efficiency) and e-Courts Project Phase III allow legal research to be conducted more quickly, translated into regional languages and facilitate case management. 

Ethical and Legal Protection.

Strict laws make sure AI is utilised closely with transparency, fairness, confidentiality and human supervision as the core focus, and build upon that, the court must document every application of AI, and judges must never accept AI suggestions without verifying them first, minimising the possibilities of bias or error.

Indian and Global

The first AI-guided robo judges were introduced by Estonia in 2019, in minor claims, and China subsequently scaled the technology to millions of cases. India is proceeding slowly, observing how global experiments are progressing and customising the best practices to meet local requirements.

The future of the Indian legal system under AI looks brighter, particularly considering the number of cases that need to be resolved. Nonetheless, its purpose will stay purely supportive, and the justice will be not only quick but also person-oriented, providing hope to students, professionals, and netizens who want to receive just and prompt legal results.