A series of important legal and constitutional developments unfolded across the country, with the Supreme Court of India examining issues related to governance of sports bodies, medical entrance examination norms, political responsibilities, and national security operations.
These developments reflect the judiciary’s continuing role in addressing institutional accountability, administrative transparency, and public interest concerns.
Supreme Court Questions Governance of Sports Bodies
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong displeasure over the management of sports bodies by individuals with no professional background in sports.
Observing that cricket associations should ideally be led by former players, the court remarked that administrators who “do not even know how to handle a bat” may lack the expertise required to manage sports institutions effectively.
The bench highlighted that sports governance directly impacts athletes’ careers, infrastructure development, and public confidence. It stressed the need for domain knowledge, ethical administration, and long-term vision in the leadership of sports bodies.
The observations come amid ongoing debates about political interference and lack of professional oversight in sports federations across India.
Annamalai Steps Back from Election Responsibilities
Former Tamil Nadu BJP state president K. Annamalai informed the party leadership that he would be unable to take up election-related responsibilities in six constituencies due to personal commitments.
Annamalai conveyed his decision to BJP State President Nainar Nagenthran, stating that his current circumstances prevent him from undertaking extensive election work.
Party sources said the leadership acknowledged his position and will assign alternative in-charges for the constituencies concerned.
The development has drawn public attention amid heightened political activity ahead of elections, though the BJP has maintained that organisational work will continue without disruption.
Supreme Court Seeks Response on NEET-PG Cut-Off Reduction
The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Union government and other authorities on a petition challenging the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) decision to sharply reduce the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025–26.
Under the revised criteria, the qualifying percentile for reserved categories has been reduced from 40 percentile to zero, allowing candidates with extremely low scores to participate in the third round of counselling.
For the general category, the cut-off was reduced from 50 percentile to 7 percentile, a move that has triggered concern among medical professionals and aspirants.
Petitioners argued that such drastic reductions could compromise academic standards and patient safety in postgraduate medical education.
The court has asked the authorities to justify the decision and explain the rationale behind the revised eligibility norms.
Two Jaish-e-Mohammad Terrorists Killed in Jammu and Kashmir
In Jammu and Kashmir, security forces neutralised two Pakistani terrorists, including a top commander of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) outfit, during an operation in Udhampur district.
Officials said the terrorists were trapped inside a natural cave during a coordinated operation. One of those killed was identified as Rubani alias Abu Mavia, a senior JeM commander.
Security agencies stated that the operation was conducted following specific intelligence inputs and forms part of ongoing counter-terror measures in the region.
The incident underscores continued security challenges in Jammu and Kashmir and the legal framework governing counter-terror operations.
Legal Significance
Together, these developments highlight the judiciary’s engagement with diverse issues ranging from sports governance and educational standards to political accountability and national security.
Legal experts note that upcoming hearings and government responses will play a crucial role in shaping policy and institutional reforms in the coming months.
