The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has threatened to resume nationwide protests after the Supreme Court allowed investigations into FIRs filed during the anti-exam paper leak agitation to continue. While the court directed authorities not to take coercive action against eligible student protesters and ordered the preservation of CCTV footage and electronic evidence, it did not order the withdrawal of existing cases.

CJP leaders allege that the interim order contradicts assurances given by the central government during negotiations that led to the suspension of protests. Founder Abhijeet Dipke accused authorities of targeting students, while party spokesperson Saurav Das warned of fresh nationwide demonstrations if the government's commitments are not honored. Meanwhile, several states have begun withdrawing cases against eligible student protesters.

CJP Threatens Fresh Nationwide Protest After Supreme Court Order on Student Protest Cases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24) approved the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that once an individual converts to Christianity and actively practices and professes, they cannot be considered as a member of the Scheduled Caste community.&nbsp;The Court ruled that individuals who follow religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be regarded as members of a Scheduled caste. It stated that conversion to any other religion leads to an immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste Status, according to a report by Live Law.<h3>What do the laws say?</h3>The Court further observed that this position is clearly laid out in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, where the restriction is absolute. It clarified that conversion to any religion not mentioned in Clause 3 of the Order results in the loss of Scheduled Caste status, regardless of a person’s birth background.&nbsp;"No statutory benefit, protection or reservation or entitlement under the Constitution or enactment of Parliament or state legislature can be claimed by or extended to any person who, by operation of clause 3, is not deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. This bar is absolute and admits no exception. A person can't simultaneously profess and practice a religion other than the one specified in clause 3 and claim membership of the Scheduled caste," the Court held.&nbsp;In an order dated April 30, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court also noted that the caste system does not apply to Christianity and, therefore, individuals who convert cannot invoke provisions under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Harinath N of the High Court dismissed charges filed by a complainant who had converted to Christianity but sought protection under the Act. A pastor has since challenged this decision by filing a special leave petition.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-china-claimed-it-india-will-own-it-the-battle-for-sowa-rigpa-s-unesco-status-1774337789118">'China claimed it, India will own it': The battle for Sowa-Rigpa's UNESCO status</a>&nbsp;

The Court ruled that individuals who follow religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be regarded as members of a Scheduled caste. It stated that conversion to any other religion leads to an immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste Status.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24) approved the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that once an individual converts to Christianity and actively practices and professes, they cannot be considered as a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The Court ruled that individuals who follow religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be regarded as members of a Scheduled caste. It stated that conversion to any other religion leads to an immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste Status, according to a report by Live Law. What do the laws say? The Court further observed that this position is clearly laid out in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, where the restriction is absolute. It clarified that conversion to any religion not mentioned in Clause 3 of the Order results in the loss of Scheduled Caste status, regardless of a person’s birth background. "No statutory benefit, protection or reservation or entitlement under the Constitution or enactment of Parliament or state legislature can be claimed by or extended to any person who, by operation of clause 3, is not deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. This bar is absolute and admits no exception. A person can't simultaneously profess and practice a religion other than the one specified in clause 3 and claim membership of the Scheduled caste," the Court held. In an order dated April 30, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court also noted that the caste system does not apply to Christianity and, therefore, individuals who convert cannot invoke provisions under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Harinath N of the High Court dismissed charges filed by a complainant who had converted to Christianity but sought protection under the Act. A pastor has since challenged this decision by filing a special leave petition. Also read: 'China claimed it, India will own it': The battle for Sowa-Rigpa's UNESCO status

The Court ruled that individuals who follow religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be regarded as members of a Scheduled caste. It stated that conversion to any other religion leads to an immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste Status.

No SC status after conversion to religion other than Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 16) made observations about relationships before marriage while considering a bail application in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of a man accused of engaging in a physical relationship with a woman after allegedly promising to marry her. The prosecution claimed that the accused was already married at the time and subsequently entered into another marriage.&nbsp;During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna said that individuals must exercise caution before entering into intimate relationships before marriage. She said that, in her view, a man and woman remain strangers until they are legally married, regardless of how close they may appear. The judge advised that one should not place complete trust in promises made before marriage.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/j-k-administration-orders-reopening-of-14-tourist-destinations-after-security-review-1771242638648">J&amp;K administration orders reopening of 14 tourist destinations after security review</a>&nbsp;The court was informed that the two had connected in 2022 through a matrimonial website. According to the prosecution, the accused assured the woman of marriage, following which they developed a physical relationship, including trips to Dubai. It was further alleged that intimate videos were recorded without the woman’s consent and that she was later threatened with their circulation.&nbsp;The prosecution said that the woman eventually discovered the man was already married and had gone on to marry another woman in Punjab in January 2024. Justice Nagarathna questioned the decision to travel abroad before the marriage had taken place. When government counsel explained that the pair had met on a matrimonial platform with the intention of marrying, the bench observed that if the woman was particular about marriage, she ought not to have undertaken such travel beforehand.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-impact-summit-2026-leaders-from-20-nations-to-attend-summit-in-india-1771238695920/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-impact-summit-2026-leaders-from-20-nations-to-attend-summit-in-india-1771238695920/embed</a>&nbsp;The court suggested that the dispute appeared to arise from a consensual relationship and suggested that such matters may not warrant a full criminal trial. The bench proposed referring the parties to mediation. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on Wednesday (February 18).

'Be very careful before...': India's top court questions pre-wedding intimacy in bail hearing

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 16) made observations about relationships before marriage while considering a bail application in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of a man accused of engaging in a physical relationship with a woman after allegedly promising to marry her. The prosecution claimed that the accused was already married at the time and subsequently entered into another marriage. During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna said that individuals must exercise caution before entering into intimate relationships before marriage. She said that, in her view, a man and woman remain strangers until they are legally married, regardless of how close they may appear. The judge advised that one should not place complete trust in promises made before marriage. Also Read: J&K administration orders reopening of 14 tourist destinations after security review The court was informed that the two had connected in 2022 through a matrimonial website. According to the prosecution, the accused assured the woman of marriage, following which they developed a physical relationship, including trips to Dubai. It was further alleged that intimate videos were recorded without the woman’s consent and that she was later threatened with their circulation. The prosecution said that the woman eventually discovered the man was already married and had gone on to marry another woman in Punjab in January 2024. Justice Nagarathna questioned the decision to travel abroad before the marriage had taken place. When government counsel explained that the pair had met on a matrimonial platform with the intention of marrying, the bench observed that if the woman was particular about marriage, she ought not to have undertaken such travel beforehand. https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-impact-summit-2026-leaders-from-20-nations-to-attend-summit-in-india-1771238695920/embed The court suggested that the dispute appeared to arise from a consensual relationship and suggested that such matters may not warrant a full criminal trial. The bench proposed referring the parties to mediation. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on Wednesday (February 18).

Supreme Court warns against pre-marital physical relationships while hearing bail plea in rape-on-promise case. The matter has been sent to mediation

UK government's plan to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda is illegal, according to the British Supreme Court, because they wouldn't be safe there. The plan would expose asylum seekers to "risk of ill-treatment," as they could be returned to their home countries after being in Rwanda, according to the majority decision rendered by the UK's highest court on Wednesday. To know more watch this interview with Senior Journalist Nicholas Nugent.

UK Court: Rwanda not safe for asylum seekers

As Supreme court cleared the release of Padmaavat in four states, fringe group Rajput Karni Sena has threatened to burn cinema halls that screen the film.&nbsp; 
 
The film was earlier banned in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana and SC have directed these states to screen the film. 
 
Lokendra Singh Kalvi, Rajput Karni Sena Chief in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh is now asking the public to impose curfew in all the halls that screen the film.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;I appeal to all social groups across the country to not let Padmaavat screen in any theater. People should impose curfew on cinema halls,&quot;saiud Kalvi. 
&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Poore desh ke saamajik sangathanon se appeal karoonga <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a> nahi chalni chahiye. Film hall par janta curfew laga de: Lokendra Singh Kalvi, Rajput Karni Sena Chief in Ujjain <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MadhyaPradesh?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MadhyaPradesh</a> <a href="https://t.co/kxIYAE38EV">pic.twitter.com/kxIYAE38EV</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/953914770884734976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Meanwhile,&nbsp;controversial Haryana politician Suraj Pal Amu has said that if the film is released, the country will fall apart.

&quot;Today the Supreme has hurt the sentiments of crores of people, who respect the court. We will continue our struggle, even if we are sent to the gallows. If this film is released, the country will fall apart,&quot; Amu said. 
&nbsp;

Lokendra Singh Kalvi appeal comes after Supreme Court cleared the film in four states.

As Supreme court cleared the release of Padmaavat in four states, fringe group Rajput Karni Sena has threatened to burn cinema halls that screen the film. The film was earlier banned in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana and SC have directed these states to screen the film. Lokendra Singh Kalvi, Rajput Karni Sena Chief in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh is now asking the public to impose curfew in all the halls that screen the film. "I appeal to all social groups across the country to not let Padmaavat screen in any theater. People should impose curfew on cinema halls,"saiud Kalvi. Poore desh ke saamajik sangathanon se appeal karoonga #Padmaavat nahi chalni chahiye. Film hall par janta curfew laga de: Lokendra Singh Kalvi, Rajput Karni Sena Chief in Ujjain #MadhyaPradesh pic.twitter.com/kxIYAE38EV — ANI (@ANI) January 18, 2018 × Meanwhile, controversial Haryana politician Suraj Pal Amu has said that if the film is released, the country will fall apart. "Today the Supreme has hurt the sentiments of crores of people, who respect the court. We will continue our struggle, even if we are sent to the gallows. If this film is released, the country will fall apart," Amu said.

Padmaavat should not be screened, appeal to public to impose 'curfew': Karni Sena chief

The Supreme Court of India tiday&nbsp;asked the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)&nbsp; to declare the results of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test&nbsp;(NEET) examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses by putting a stay on the Madras High Court order restraining publication of results.

The CBSE has&nbsp;set in motion the process for declaring the result of NEET-2017 after the Supreme Court&#39;s go-ahead.

The apex court order comes as a relief for 12 lakh medical aspirants who had given the exam.

The apex court directed the authorities concerned to proceed with the process of declaration of results, subsequent counselling and admission as per the schedule fixed by it earlier.

However, a vacation bench of Justices P C Pant and Deepak Gupta said the declaration of results as well as the subsequent counselling and admission will be subject to the decision of the apex court in the matter pending before it.

The bench also requested all the high courts not to entertain petitions in the matters relating to the (NEET) examination 2017.

The order came on the plea by the&nbsp;CBSE&nbsp;and others challenging the May 24 order of the Madras High Court which had restrained the Board from publishing the results of NEET examination 2017 in which around 12 lakh aspirants had appeared.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Maninder Singh, appearing for the CBSE, told the bench that due to high court&#39;s order the process of declaration of results and subsequent admission have stalled and the order was in conflict with the schedule fixed by the apex court earlier.

The bench also observed that the high court&#39;s order was &quot;indirectly diluting the schedule&quot; fixed by the apex court.

&quot;On one ground we are inclined to stay the high court&#39;s order. What indirectly this order is doing is that it is diluting the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court,&quot; the bench said while staying the high court&#39;s order.

&quot;In view of the above, the interim order is stayed and it is directed that the authorities concerned will proceed further with declaration of results for the NEET 2017 examination subject to decision of this court,&quot; the bench said while listing the matter for further proceedings after summer vacation.

The CBSE had on June 9 moved the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay on the Madras High Court order.

The high court had on May 24 granted interim stay on the publication of NEET results on a batch of pleas alleging that a uniform question paper was not given in the examination and there was a vast difference between the ones in English and in Tamil.

The CBSE had said that due to the high court&#39;s order, the entire schedule of counselling and subsequent admission for medical courses through NEET has gone &quot;haywire&quot;.

ASG Singh had earlier told the apex court that out of 12 lakh aspirants who appeared in the NEET 2017, around 10.5 lakh students have given the exam in either Hindi or English while around 1.25 lakh to 1.50 lakh students have appeared in eight vernacular languages.

He had said that a number of pleas have been filed in various high courts in NEET-related matters and high courts have entertained these petitions despite the apex court&#39;s order that no other court shall hear such matters.

He had also sought transfer of petitions from various high courts to the apex court which concerns the NEET for the academic year 2017-18.

Singh had said that challenge to different sets of questions in vernacular languages were on wrong assumptions that they were difficult as the experts had examined that they were different from those in English or Hindi medium but the level of difficulty cannot be said to be different.

He had said that questions were different to keep the larger interest protected on the ground that if there was a leakage of a set of paper in a vernacular language, the majority of students would be protected as candidates appearing in any particular language were less than those opting for English or Hindi.

The Madras high court had also directed the Medical Council of India, the director of CBSE and the Union Health Ministry to file counter affidavits on these pleas pending before it.

The petitioners before the high court demanded that the NEET 2017 be cancelled and a fresh exam with a uniform question paper be conducted.

They have claimed that different sets of question paper had been used at various places, though a common syllabus had been announced.

In Tamil Nadu, the question papers were different for those who opted English and Tamil and the one in Tamil was easier, they have claimed.

The order came on the plea by the?CBSE?and others challenging the May 24 order of the Madras High Court which had restrained the Board from publishing the results of NEET examination 2017 in which around 12 lakh aspirants had appeared

The Supreme Court of India tiday asked the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to declare the results of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses by putting a stay on the Madras High Court order restraining publication of results. The CBSE has set in motion the process for declaring the result of NEET-2017 after the Supreme Court's go-ahead. The apex court order comes as a relief for 12 lakh medical aspirants who had given the exam. The apex court directed the authorities concerned to proceed with the process of declaration of results, subsequent counselling and admission as per the schedule fixed by it earlier. However, a vacation bench of Justices P C Pant and Deepak Gupta said the declaration of results as well as the subsequent counselling and admission will be subject to the decision of the apex court in the matter pending before it. The bench also requested all the high courts not to entertain petitions in the matters relating to the (NEET) examination 2017. The order came on the plea by the CBSE and others challenging the May 24 order of the Madras High Court which had restrained the Board from publishing the results of NEET examination 2017 in which around 12 lakh aspirants had appeared. Additional solicitor general (ASG) Maninder Singh, appearing for the CBSE, told the bench that due to high court's order the process of declaration of results and subsequent admission have stalled and the order was in conflict with the schedule fixed by the apex court earlier. The bench also observed that the high court's order was "indirectly diluting the schedule" fixed by the apex court. "On one ground we are inclined to stay the high court's order. What indirectly this order is doing is that it is diluting the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court," the bench said while staying the high court's order. "In view of the above, the interim order is stayed and it is directed that the authorities concerned will proceed further with declaration of results for the NEET 2017 examination subject to decision of this court," the bench said while listing the matter for further proceedings after summer vacation. The CBSE had on June 9 moved the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay on the Madras High Court order. The high court had on May 24 granted interim stay on the publication of NEET results on a batch of pleas alleging that a uniform question paper was not given in the examination and there was a vast difference between the ones in English and in Tamil. The CBSE had said that due to the high court's order, the entire schedule of counselling and subsequent admission for medical courses through NEET has gone "haywire". ASG Singh had earlier told the apex court that out of 12 lakh aspirants who appeared in the NEET 2017, around 10.5 lakh students have given the exam in either Hindi or English while around 1.25 lakh to 1.50 lakh students have appeared in eight vernacular languages. He had said that a number of pleas have been filed in various high courts in NEET-related matters and high courts have entertained these petitions despite the apex court's order that no other court shall hear such matters. He had also sought transfer of petitions from various high courts to the apex court which concerns the NEET for the academic year 2017-18. Singh had said that challenge to different sets of questions in vernacular languages were on wrong assumptions that they were difficult as the experts had examined that they were different from those in English or Hindi medium but the level of difficulty cannot be said to be different. He had said that questions were different to keep the larger interest protected on the ground that if there was a leakage of a set of paper in a vernacular language, the majority of students would be protected as candidates appearing in any particular language were less than those opting for English or Hindi. The Madras high court had also directed the Medical Council of India, the director of CBSE and the Union Health Ministry to file counter affidavits on these pleas pending before it. The petitioners before the high court demanded that the NEET 2017 be cancelled and a fresh exam with a uniform question paper be conducted. They have claimed that different sets of question paper had been used at various places, though a common syllabus had been announced. In Tamil Nadu, the question papers were different for those who opted English and Tamil and the one in Tamil was easier, they have claimed.

Following Supreme Court order, CBSE sets NEET result process in motion