JPSC Knowledge Hub โ PYQ, Study Materials, Quizzes & Notifications for JPSC Aspirants
In a case that blends administrative sensitivity with judicial oversight, the Jharkhand government officially informed the High Court of its decision to withdraw the April 17 order that removed Dr. Raj Kumar, Director of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. As a result, the Jharkhand High Court disposed of Dr. Kumarโs petition, indicating that no further legal action was necessary.
SC Criticises Jharkhand HC for Delayed Verdicts: Theย Supreme Court of India has expressed grave concern over a massive backlog in the Jharkhand High Court, where 67 criminal appeals were argued and judgements were reserved but never delivered. These include 56 division bench cases and 11 by single benches. In some cases, judgements have remained pending for over two years, leading to what the apex court has deemed a clear denial of justice.
Welcome to your go-to daily roundup of Jharkhand News Today โ your one-stop summary of the stateโs most important headlines from May 3, 2025. Whether you’re a civil services aspirant, a resident of the state, or just someone interested in Jharkhandโs current affairs, this digest is designed to keep you informed and ahead.
On May 2, 2025, the Jharkhand High Court delivered a landmark verdict declaring the mandatory annual affiliation fee for private schools unconstitutional. Introduced under the 2019 Jharkhand Education Rules, the court found the provision arbitrary, emphasising that it infringes on the Right to Education (RTE) and restricts private institutions’ operational autonomy.
The Jharkhand High Court has stayed the state government’s controversial order to remove Dr. Raj Kumar from his position as Director of the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. This development highlights the paramount importance of procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards in administrative decisions.
Women safety in Jharkhand is once again under legal scrutiny as the Jharkhand High Court pulls up the state government for failing to provide a progress report on court-mandated safety measures. This issue has wide-reaching implications, not just for public safety but also for governance and constitutional rights.
