State government stonewalling attempts to appoint VCs of varsities: TN Guv
In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the governor's office rejected the state's counter-claims that the chancellery had politicised universities or adopted an obstructive posture, and said the real cause of delays in filling vice-chancellor vacancies was the state government's effort to bypass the UGC Regulations, 2018 and divest the governor of the appointing authority.
UGC also filed a separate affidavit endorsing the governor's position, saying that the state legislature's amendments run afoul of UGC Regulations and that the regulations have the force of law that must be followed by all universities.
The dispute concerns a set of amendments enacted by the Tamil Nadu legislature that remove the governor's power, exercised as chancellor of state universities, to appoint VCs and instead empower the state government to constitute search committees, prescribe eligibility criteria and make appointments.
The state has challenged an interim order of the Madras High Court on May 21 that stayed operation of those amendments to the extent they take away the chancellor's appointing power. The state is represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson in the top court while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represents UGC.
A bench led by Justice PS Narasimha is expected to hear the state's appeal on Thursday.
The governor's affidavit sets out a chronological record of correspondence between Raj Bhavan and the state government about the constitution and reconstitution of search cum selection committees for Bharathiar University, the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University and the University of Madras. The record, the affidavit says, shows that the governor repeatedly sought the reconstitution of panels to include a nominee of the UGC chairman in line with UGC Regulations and with earlier judicial directions, but that the state either delayed or refused to accept those reconstitutions.
According to Ravi's affidavit, after repeated reminders the governor as chancellor ultimately included the UGC chairman's nominee and notified the reconstituted committees, but the state persisted in refusing to accept the inclusion and later sought recall of the governor's notifications.
'As the government did not reconstitute the committee as per UGC Regulations, despite repeated reminders, the governor-chancellor had no other option but to add the nominee of the UGC chairman and to reconstitute the search cum selection committee and to notify the same,' it stated.
The governor's affidavit further stressed that including the UGC chairman's nominee was mandatory under the 2018 UGC Regulations and that the chancellor's actions were aimed at legal compliance rather than delay.
It contended that the state's amendments, which vest appointment powers in the government while leaving the governor nominally as chancellor, are inconsistent with the UGC Regulations and therefore cannot prevail. The affidavit further submitted that the UGC Regulations, once notified, become part of the statutory architecture governing higher education and have primacy over conflicting state enactments.
The UGC's separate filing echoed this position, asserting that the state's exercise of legislative competence to transfer the appointing power to the government violates UGC Regulations and that the UGC's broad mandate to maintain higher education standards applies equally across all universities. The commission's affidavit argues that the state's attempt to circumscribe the UGC's role is a misplaced afterthought and that the regulations must be observed as having the force of law.
In its appeal before the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government has contended that the high court acted with 'undue haste' and stayed the operation of nine statutes enacted by the state legislature, many of which had received deemed assent as per the Supreme Court's judgment dated April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu Vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. The amendments passed by the Assembly in April followed the Supreme Court's rebuke to the Governor over delays in assenting to pending bills, most of which pertained to the appointment of VCs.
The April 8 ruling by the Supreme Court had struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent. The matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.
The state, in its special leave petition, argued that the high court's stay amounted to granting final relief at the interim stage. It pointed out that the high court passed its order without giving the state adequate opportunity to respond, file a counter-affidavit, or present its arguments on the merits.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Omar owes an apology, not a signature campaign: Opposition tears into CM over statehood ‘theatrics'
As Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said he will launch a signature campaign to seek statehood for Jammu and Kashmir, the opposition, in a scathing attack, said he 'owes an apology and not a signature campaign'. Saying that signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity, the opposition questioned his 'reluctance' in passing a resolution for statehood in the assembly. 'Omar Abdullah owes an apology, not a signature campaign for normalising 5th August. With 50 MLAs behind him, he has reduced the fight for J&K's statehood to token gestures, after seeking votes door-to-door on the promise of restoring pre–5th August status,' senior Peoples Democratic Party leader Waheed Para said. 'This is not just a retreat, it is a betrayal. The people gave him a historic mandate to fight for Article 370 and statehood, not to stage political theatre.' Para said that if Omar has already surrendered, he 'must admit it and apologise to every citizen of J&K for selling promises he never intended to keep'. In his Independence Day speech, Omar said, 'We will have to leave the offices, and now we will have to raise our voice to those doors where our decisions are being made. Till now, through letters, resolutions, and meetings, we have raised our voice. Now we are going to raise our voice from every village of J&K to Delhi.' 'My intention today is that the Supreme Court has given us eight weeks… Henceforth, my colleagues and I will not sit idle. We will not get tired. We will use these eight weeks to reach every 90 assembly constituencies of J&K,' he said. Peoples Conference president Sajad Lone questioned the logic behind launching a signature campaign, saying that a resolution in the assembly instead would have constitutional dignity. 'Signature campaigns have no legal or constitutional sanctity,' Lone said while promising support for any movement towards statehood. 'Can CM sahib please, once and for all times to come, explain his reluctance to have a resolution for statehood passed in the Legislative Assembly. Let us approach the Supreme Court as a constitutional entity.' Calling the door-to-door signature campaign 'theatrics', Lone assured unconditional support for the statehood campaign. 'I would strongly assert that pass a resolution in the state Assembly. That is the most dignified way to approach the Supreme Court,' Lone said. 'Please tell me, are you shielding and protecting the state BJP and giving them the luxury of not taking a position on statehood by not passing a resolution on statehood?'
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Interacting with judicial candidates helpful: CJI
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Friday described the collegium's recent practice of personally interacting with candidates being considered for high court appointments as 'really helpful,' saying that even a brief 10-15 minute conversation can reveal how suitable a nominee would be in contributing to society. Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai visited his alma mater, Chikitsak Samuh's school in Girgaon, in Mumbai, on July 6. (Ayushman Poyrekar/HT Photo) Speaking at the Supreme Court complex during Independence Day celebrations, the CJI underlined that the exercise, revived in December 2024 and now firmly embedded in the appointments process, has strengthened the collegium's ability to assess candidates' temperament, outlook and commitment beyond what can be gleaned from service records or paper credentials. 'In our opinion, after interaction with them for 10-15 minutes, or half an hour, we can find out as to how suitable they will be to contribute to society,' he said, noting that the practice was initiated during Justice Sanjiv Khanna's tenure as CJI and has been continued under his leadership. The latest round in July saw the collegium, comprising CJI Gavai and justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, meet more than 50 judicial officers and lawyers over just two days, setting a record for the highest number of face-to-face interactions in one go for high court appointments. Candidates were considered for the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Patna, Rajasthan and others. According to people familiar with the process, the trio, who include the next two CJIs in line, asked wide-ranging questions on constitutional values, pressing legal issues, ethics and institutional responsibility. This model, the CJI on Friday said, reflected the collegium's awareness of the need to evolve and adopt all measures required to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the judges' selection mechanism. Responding to Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh's call for a body to collate names of potential appointees to the constitutional courts, the CJI stressed that several lawyers practising in the apex court had in recent years been appointed to various high courts and that more such recommendations were in the pipeline. While the Supreme Court collegium could suggest names to high court collegiums, the first call, he emphasised, lay with the latter. 'The Supreme Court is not a superior court to the high court. Both are constitutional courts… Therefore, the first call has to be taken by the high court collegium. We only recommend the names… and only after their satisfaction do the names come to the Supreme Court,' he said. The revival of in-person interactions last December followed a controversy over judicial conduct involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, whose communal remarks at a public event earlier that month drew widespread criticism. At the time, the collegium, then led by Justice Khanna and including justices Gavai and Kant, saw such interviews as a way to ensure a more holistic understanding of a candidate's suitability. Union minister for law and justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, attorney general R Venkataramani, SCBA vice-president and senior advocate Rahul Kaushik and SCBA secretary Pragya Baghel were also present at the event. In the second half of his speech, CJI Gavai turned to the role of the judiciary in protecting constitutional ideals. He called on judges to interpret laws in ways that 'expand freedom, protect the rights of the marginalized, and strengthen the rule of law,' and urged both judges and lawyers to carry forward the legacy of the freedom struggle's legal luminaries, who 'argued fearlessly, challenged injustice, and defended the rights of the vulnerable.' He invoked a vision of India where 'no child is denied education because of her caste or poverty,' no woman 'walks in fear, by day or by night,' and 'no citizen is too small to be heard.' Judges, he stressed, bore the solemn duty not just to apply the law but to 'actively uphold and embody' liberty, equality, and fraternity. 'Our history teaches us that the struggle for freedom was not only a political movement but also a moral and legal endeavour…This legacy must guide the lawyers of today,' said the CJI, urging legal professionals to recognise that even seemingly minor disputes may carry deep implications for life, dignity or survival. Ends
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Thick-skinned: Mohan Yadav slams Rahul Gandhi for repeated attacks on institutions
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav on Friday renewed his attacks on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of stubbornly continuing his line of criticism in elections despite judicial censure, calling him "thick-skinned".Yadav's attack came in specific reference to the Congress leader being recently reprimanded by the Supreme Court for claiming that India ceded 2,000 sq km of its territory to China and the rejection of his claim of "vote chori" by the Election at a program on Independence Day, Yadav described Gandhi as so "thick-skinned" that "even repeated reprimands by the Supreme Court and the High Court have no effect on him". Yadav took aim at Gandhi's continued allegations against institutions, saying, "On the contrary, he repeatedly puts institutions in the dock. Despite being punished by the Supreme Court for statements like Chowkidar chor hai, he did not change his language and attitude".The chief minister added, "Don't know from where he has started talking about chori-chori".These comments come a day after Mohan Yadav accused Gandhi of being an "urban Naxal", while speaking to India Today also sought to underscore the resilience of India's democratic framework. "The world's largest democracy is strong because of the Election Commission. The Election Commission has passed every test".He implied that Gandhi's allegations, rather than fostering transparency, actually target and weaken public trust in foundational escalation follows Rahul Gandhi's ongoing "vote chori" campaign, in which he accuses the Election Commission and the BJP of electoral malpractice. Gandhi's claims have been publicly rebuked by the poll August 14, the poll panel dismissed the use of phrases like "vote chori" calling them "dirty phrases" that fuel misleading pointed out that India has upheld the principle of "one person, one vote" since 1951–52 and demanded Gandhi produce proof—specifically via a written affidavit—rather than general accusations that, in their words, "colour all the electors of India as 'chor' without any proof.- EndsMust Watch
