Ayodhya, Sep 25: As Samajwadi Party (SP) Chief Akhilesh Yadav began his campaign for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections from Raebareli, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said on Friday that the Rath Yatra could start from anywhere, even from someone’s home, but claimed that Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi was also uneasy as the SP Chief was making inroads into whatever little vote bank the grand old party had left in the state.

Speaking to media, BJP MP Ravi Kishan said, “The Rath can start from anywhere, even from someone’s home, but everyone feels that Rahul Gandhi ji has also become uneasy because Akhilesh Yadav ji is making inroads into whatever little Congress vote bank remains. Now, look at their politics. Only they (SP and Congress) and God know what they are doing.”

“Our politics is that of the BJP. Our focus is on how we can win all the seats in Purvanchal and work harder on the seats where we are weaker. We are focusing on that. Their (SP’s) Rath can go anywhere; let it go wherever they want. If their Rath travels all the way to Pakistan, it does not matter to us,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Samajwadi Party said that no place belongs to anyone permanently.

SP MP Awadhesh Prasad said, “No place belongs to anyone permanently. It is the grace of the people. Yesterday, the Samajwadi Party, under the leadership of Akhilesh ji, took out a Rath Yatra to Raebareli. We went to the place where injustice and atrocities had taken place and where our elected representative had been insulted.”

“There was no special preparation, and the weather was also not favourable. Despite this, the way a huge crowd gathered surprised everyone. The intentions of those who were with the BJP were completely shaken,” he added.

Meanwhile, Akhilesh Yadav’s decision to begin his (Pichhada, Dalit, and Alpsankhyak) PDA Rath Yatra from Raebareli — the Lok Sabha constituency of senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi — on September 24 has brought the relationship between the two key INDIA bloc allies into focus ahead of the high-stakes Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections scheduled early next year.

Akhilesh’s Rath Yatra, being undertaken in a specially designed bus, is aimed at consolidating the SP’s PDA — social coalition ahead of the Assembly polls scheduled for February 2027.

New Delhi, Sep 25: LG Electronics India Ltd has received a show cause notice from the Customs authorities for the recovery of Rs 153.58 crore as customs duty for allegedly not including royalty payments in the assessable value of certain imported goods, the company has stated in a stock exchange filing.

The show cause notice has been issued following an investigation carried out by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), alleging non-inclusion of royalty payments in the assessable value of certain imported goods.

The notice, dated September 22, was issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Port in Navi Mumbai, and was received by the company on September 24.

Meanwhile, LG Electronics, along with arch rival and compatriot Samsung, are also facing an investigation for alleged wrong ⁠claims of concessional 5 per cent customs duty on imported OLED glass screens. The DRI authorities have expressed the view that the concessional rate is meant for the older LCD and LEDs used in products sold in the mass market. For OLED parts, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is of the opinion that both Samsung and LG should have paid a 15 per cent customs duty, according to a Reuters report.

LG Electronics is reported to have sent responses to written questions by the authorities on its OLED imports and has voluntarily deposited the money to pay for the difference in customs duty as estimated by officials.

Meanwhile, LG Electronics India reported a 27.2 per cent year-on-year surge in net profit to Rs 653 crore for the first quarter of financial year 2026-27compared with the corresponding figure of Rs 513 crore in the same quarter of 2025-26, driven by strong summer demand and premium product sales.

The company’s revenue rose 15.5 per cent during the April-June quarter to Rs 7,233 crore compared with the corresponding figure of Rs 6,262 crore in the same quarter of the previous financial year.

New Delhi, Sep 25: The Delhi High Court has held that Medical Assessment Boards assessing candidates for admission to the MBBS course cannot interfere with or reduce the percentage of disability recorded in a valid Unique Disability Identity (UDID) card, and must confine themselves to assessing the candidate’s functional competency.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while allowing two petitions filed by NEET-UG 2026 candidates, whose disability percentages were reduced by Medical Assessment Boards during the admission process, resulting in their removal from the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.

The High Court set aside the assessment and eligibility certificates issued in both cases and directed the authorities to permit the petitioners to participate in the third round of NEET-UG 2026 counselling and the mop-up round, if any, according to their rank and entitlement under the PwBD category, treating their disabilities as recorded in their respective UDID cards.

One of the petitioners, an 18-year-old candidate with permanent visual disability, possessed a Disability Certificate and UDID card recording 60 per cent permanent disability. His NEET-UG 2026 admit card also recorded his disability as blindness and granted him compensatory time. He secured 398 out of 720 marks in the examination and had a PwBD rank of 409. However, after appearing before the Medical Assessment Board at Lady Hardinge Medical College, his disability was assessed at 30 per cent, although the Board certified him as eligible to pursue the MBBS course, capable of undertaking it and not posing a threat to patients.

The Appellate Medical PwBD Assessment Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital subsequently concurred with the 30 per cent assessment. His candidature was thereafter shifted from the PwBD category to the General category, resulting in his exclusion from the first round of counselling under the PwBD category.

The other petitioner, Aashiya, had a permanent locomotor disability of 61 per cent recorded in her Disability Certificate and UDID card. She had secured 363 out of 720 marks in NEET-UG 2026, with a PwBD rank of 638. Her disability was re-quantified at 16 per cent by the Primary Disability Assessment Medical Board, and the appellate board subsequently confirmed the same, rendering her ineligible for PwBD reservation. She too could not participate in the first round of counselling under the category.

The petitioners contended that the UDID card is the primary document for establishing the extent of disability and that the Medical Assessment Boards were required only to undertake a functional assessment and did not have the power to reassess the percentage of disability.

On the other hand, the respondent authorities relied on the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for Admission to the MBBS Course, 2026, contending that the Medical Assessment Boards were empowered to determine the candidates’ functional competency.

In its judgment, the High Court observed that the Guidelines specifically provide that the UDID card “shall serve as the primary documentary evidence of the existence, nature and extent of the specified disability” and that while the Medical Assessment Board has to independently determine the candidate’s functional competency, eligibility cannot be based solely on the category or percentage recorded in the UDID card.

Justice Singh held that the provisions “do not empower the Board to revisit the percentage of disability recorded in the UDID card”.

“A combined reading of these provisions shows that eligibility for reservation under the PwBD category is determined by the benchmark disability prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The UDID card issued under the Act is therefore the primary document for that purpose,” the High Court said.

It further observed that the Medical Assessment Board is empowered to assess whether a candidate can complete the MBBS curriculum and subsequently undertake the profession of medicine, but “it cannot interfere with the disability recorded in the UDID card”.

The High Court also referred to Sections 56, 57 and 59 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, stating that the statutory framework provides for certification of disability by designated authorities and an appellate remedy against such certification.

“If any of the respondents is aggrieved by the UDID card, the remedy is to appeal against the decision of the certifying authority. It is not open to a Medical Assessment Board to disregard or reduce the recorded percentage at the stage of admission,” the judgment held.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Om Rathod vs. Director General of Health Services, the High Court reiterated that disability assessment boards must focus on functional competence rather than merely quantifying disability.

The Supreme Court had observed that “Disability Assessment Boards must focus on the functional competence of persons with disabilities and not merely quantify the disability”.

The Delhi High Court said that permitting Medical Assessment Boards to alter the disability percentage recorded in a valid UDID card would render it a “mere paper formality” and “meaningless”, which was not the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Setting aside the assessments and eligibility certificates issued by the Medical Assessment Boards in both cases, the High Court directed the authorities to permit the petitioners to participate in the third round of NEET-UG 2026 counselling and the mop-up round, if any, treating their disabilities as recorded in their respective UDID cards.

However, it declined the petitioners’ request to create supernumerary seats, observing that the first two rounds of counselling had already concluded and seats had been allotted. Allowing the writ petitions, Justice Singh observed that the petitioners could still be accommodated in the third and mop-up rounds, distinguishing their case from those where counselling had already concluded with no remaining round.