South Indian actress Shakeela undergoes neck surgery after excessive phone use

A renewed debate over the reliability of PhD examinations has emerged following questions surrounding the doctoral thesis of Professor Jason Arday. Arday submitted his PhD thesis at Liverpool John Moores University in July 2015. The controversy resurfaced after Professor Richard Dawkins publicly questioned whether the thesis had been thoroughly examined. Other commentators have also raised concerns about its academic quality and allegations of plagiarism. The debate has now expanded beyond the individual case. It has prompted questions about how universities assess doctoral research and whether the existing system consistently maintains the required academic standards. A PhD normally represents several years of specialised research. A doctoral thesis can contain tens of thousands of words and often requires extensive academic reading and analysis. The assessment is generally carried out by two examiners. One is usually from the candidate’s university, while the other comes from an external institution. Critics argue that the workload involved in examining a thesis is not always matched by the financial compensation provided to examiners. Examiners are commonly paid a relatively modest fee for reviewing lengthy and complex research. This has raised concerns that some may not devote sufficient time to the process. There are also concerns about inconsistencies in examination decisions. Some candidates have reportedly failed their PhDs despite believing that their research met the required standard. Others have received a pass even when questions remained about the quality of their work. The appeal process can be particularly difficult for unsuccessful candidates. A failed PhD can mean years of research being lost. Students who finance their own studies can also face substantial financial losses. For those hoping to build academic careers, the consequences can be even more serious. Another issue is the selection of examiners. Supervisors often play a role in recommending academics to assess their students’ work. Critics say professional relationships within academia could potentially influence the choice of examiners or the assessment itself. Academic misconduct presents another challenge. Universities can spend considerable time investigating allegations of plagiarism and other forms of cheating. Lengthy investigations can involve hearings, appeals and administrative procedures. The discussion has also highlighted the subjective nature of academic assessment. Different examiners can sometimes reach different conclusions about the same research. In some cases, candidates who fail with one set of examiners may later receive a pass from another panel after an appeal. There is no suggestion that these concerns necessarily apply to Arday’s examination. The available debate does not establish whether his thesis met or failed to meet the required standard. However, the controversy has renewed calls for universities to examine their doctoral assessment systems. Questions include how examiners are selected, whether they receive adequate compensation, how thoroughly theses are reviewed and how allegations of academic misconduct are handled. The wider debate is therefore about more than one doctoral thesis. It raises fundamental questions about the credibility, consistency and accountability of the PhD examination process.

A court in New Delhi on Friday sentenced former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Tahir Hussain to life imprisonment for the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots. The verdict was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh after the court found Hussain guilty in the high-profile murder case linked to the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020. The court also awarded life imprisonment to four other convicts found guilty in the same case. All five were held responsible for the killing of Ankit Sharma, whose death became one of the most widely discussed incidents of the riots. According to the prosecution, Sharma was attacked and killed during the violence that broke out in northeast Delhi, where clashes between rival groups resulted in widespread destruction, loss of life and damage to public and private property. The 2020 Delhi riots lasted several days and claimed dozens of lives while leaving hundreds of people injured. The violence triggered multiple criminal investigations, with police registering several cases against individuals accused of involvement in killings, arson and rioting. Tahir Hussain was elected as a municipal councillor from northeast Delhi on an Aam Aadmi Party ticket in 2017. He was considered a prominent local political figure before the riots. Following his arrest in connection with multiple cases related to the 2020 violence, the Aam Aadmi Party suspended him from the party. Since then, Hussain has remained at the centre of several legal proceedings arising from the riots. Friday’s judgment marks a significant development in one of the most prominent cases linked to the 2020 Delhi violence. The court concluded that Hussain and the four co-convicts were responsible for the murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma and imposed life imprisonment as punishment. The ruling is expected to remain one of the most significant judicial decisions connected to the 2020 Delhi riots, which continue to have legal and political implications in India.