The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Government to shift its focus from distributing free rations to creating employment opportunities as a sustainable measure to combat poverty and unemployment.

The court’s suggestion comes amid ongoing discussions about the long-term viability of providing free rations to nearly 81.35 crore people under various welfare schemes. While recognizing the immediate relief such programs offer, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for structural solutions that address unemployment and empower individuals to achieve self-sufficiency.

According to the court, employment generation initiatives would have a more sustainable impact on poverty alleviation and income inequality. By prioritizing job creation and skill development, the government can help citizens transition from dependency on welfare to self-reliance, thus improving their quality of life.

The Central Government has been directed to respond to the court’s recommendations and present a comprehensive plan for implementing employment-focused programs. The court’s directive is viewed as a significant call for policy shifts aimed at strengthening the economy through increased job opportunities and workforce development.

Experts and social activists have welcomed the move, asserting that employment generation is a more effective long-term solution to tackle poverty. They argue that while free rations address immediate food insecurity, creating sustainable livelihoods ensures economic stability for individuals and families, leading to broader social progress.

The Supreme Court’s directive has reignited the debate on balancing welfare programs with economic growth. A renewed focus on employment initiatives is expected to enhance skill development, encourage entrepreneurship, and open avenues for meaningful work, thereby reducing dependency on state-provided relief.

The government’s response to the court’s suggestion is anticipated in the coming weeks, with stakeholders eager to see actionable steps toward addressing unemployment and fostering economic empowerment across the country.

There is growing support for law schools to enhance their curricula by integrating and prioritizing the teaching of mediation and negotiation skills. Experts argue that these competencies are essential for modern legal practice, yet they often receive insufficient focus in traditional law school programs. By emphasizing these skills, law schools can better prepare students for the evolving demands of the legal profession, where resolving disputes outside of court is increasingly valued.

Mediation and negotiation are integral parts of the legal landscape, particularly as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods continue to gain prominence. These skills enable lawyers to facilitate amicable agreements between parties, saving time, money, and resources compared to lengthy courtroom battles. However, many law schools have traditionally concentrated on litigation and the theoretical aspects of law, often neglecting the practical, hands-on skills required to mediate and negotiate effectively.

Experts suggest that incorporating mediation and negotiation into law school curricula can provide students with a well-rounded education, blending both the legal theory and the practical tools necessary for successful legal practice. Mediation, in particular, is viewed as an effective method for resolving disputes in a way that benefits all parties involved, making it a critical skill for lawyers to master.

Some law schools have already begun to adopt innovative teaching methods to enhance their students' mediation and negotiation abilities. These methods include role-playing exercises, simulations, and real-world case studies that allow students to practice these skills in a controlled, supportive environment. Such approaches not only teach theoretical knowledge but also equip students with practical experience in handling complex negotiations and mediations.

By elevating mediation and negotiation skills within the curriculum, law schools can better prepare students for the multifaceted nature of modern legal practice. This shift can empower the next generation of lawyers to become more effective problem-solvers, helping clients reach resolutions that are mutually beneficial and avoiding the time and costs associated with litigation.

As per Bar and Council reports, as the legal field increasingly values dispute resolution outside the courtroom, it is essential for law schools to prioritize the teaching of mediation and negotiation skills. This shift in focus will equip future lawyers with the tools they need to thrive in an ever-evolving legal landscape, ultimately benefiting clients and society as a whole.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the Supreme Court today that the trial of the rape and murder case of a trainee doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College is likely to conclude within a month. The trial, which is being held in a Special CBI Court in Sealdah, has made significant progress, with 43 out of 81 prosecution witnesses already deposed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, stated that the court is conducting hearings four days a week, and expressed satisfaction with the trial's pace. The court has been monitoring the progress closely, and there is hope for an expedited conclusion.

The tragic incident, which occurred on August 9, 2018, led to the transfer of the case from the Kolkata Police to the CBI, after concerns were raised about the handling of the investigation. The CBI’s chargesheet identified Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer, as the prime accused in the crime.

In addition to the ongoing trial, the CBI also shared updates regarding a separate investigation into financial irregularities at RG Kar Medical College, which has led to a chargesheet. However, prosecution sanction for this aspect of the case is still pending from the state government.

Meanwhile, advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the victim's family, urged the court to include individuals allegedly involved in the cover-up of the crime in a supplementary chargesheet. The Supreme Court has also been reviewing the progress of a National Task Force (NTF) set up to propose measures for the safety of medical professionals, with a final report expected within 12 weeks.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 2025, although an earlier date could be set if the trial faces delays. The Supreme Court has also called on states to improve measures against gender-based violence and enhance safety protocols for healthcare workers.

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition challenging the results of the CLAT PG 2025 examination, advising the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court for further action. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, dismissed the plea filed by Anam Khan and Ayush Agarwal, who had raised objections to the provisional answer key released on December 2.

The petitioners had claimed that the answer key contained errors in 12 questions, and they also objected to the short, one-day window provided for raising objections. Additionally, they criticized the Rs 1,000 fee per objection as excessive. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these concerns, with the Chief Justice stating that the Rs 1,000 fee per objection was "not a big deal."

In its ruling, the court emphasized that it could not intervene as the court of first instance in such matters, stressing the importance of timely release of examination results. The bench raised concerns about the potential delays that could be caused by the apex court's involvement in such cases.

With the petition now dismissed, the petitioners have been advised to take their grievances to the Delhi High Court. The move highlights the judicial preference for allowing the High Court to address issues related to the examination, leaving the Supreme Court to focus on matters of national significance.

The decision comes as a setback for those challenging the CLAT PG 2025 results, but the path is still open for legal recourse through the High Court. This development underscores the importance of following proper legal channels and the need for timely resolution of disputes in academic examinations.