Kerala moves SC against governor's appointment of interim VCs at two universities
The state government has submitted in its petition that the appointments, made by the governor in his capacity as the ex-officio chancellor of state universities, bypassed the procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court.
It added that the governor made the decision unilaterally without consulting the government.
The case stems from a notification issued by the former governor on November 27, 2024, appointing Thomas and Sivaprasad as interim vice-chancellors of the digital university and the technological university.
On May 19, a single bench of the Kerala High Court struck down both appointments but allowed the incumbents to continue until May 27 to avoid disruption.
A division bench of the High Court later upheld the ruling, saying the governor could appoint temporary vice-chancellors for only up to six months, and only on the basis of recommendations from the state government.
The court also directed the government to propose names of qualified candidates, as prescribed by the University Grants Commission, for temporary appointments until permanent vice-chancellors were selected.
The government then submitted a panel of three nominees for each post.
However, instead of appointing from the panel, the governor approached the Supreme Court, Onmanorama reported.
On July 31, the Supreme Court said the Kerala governor can appoint temporary vice-chancellors to both universities until permanent appointments are made, The Indian Express reported.
While issuing the notification for the reappointment of Thomas and Sivaprasad on August 1, Arlekar cited the Supreme Court order.
The Kerala government, in its petition, contended that the court order also specified that such a notification must be issued in accordance with Section 13(7) of the Kerala Technology University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act.
These provisions require the appointment of temporary vice-chancellors from a panel recommended by the Kerala government, which was not followed, the state government submitted, according to Onmanorama .
In 2023, the Kerala government had attempted to remove the governor as the chancellor of state universities, with the Assembly passing a bill to that effect.
This was done amid a clash between the government and former Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. Khan had referred the legislation to the president, who has not yet granted it assent.
In May 2024, the Kerala High Court cancelled four nominations made by Khan to the senate of the University of Kerala and said that his role as the chancellor did not allow him 'unbridled power'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The streets are no place for dogs. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation
Written by Harish Tiwari The Supreme Court's recent directive to remove free-roaming dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and place them in shelters within eight weeks is a landmark moment in India's decades-long struggle with stray dog management. It finally recognises what has long been evident — the streets are not the right place for man's best friend. But the real test will lie not in the order itself but in its execution. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation. If it fails through haste or poor planning, other states will hesitate for years, and the issue could slide back into neglect. The CJI has, however, constituted a three-judge bench to hear the matter further and has reserved the order. For years, debate on this issue has been reduced to 'dog lovers versus dog bite victims,' a false binary that tries to portray the issue as compassion against cruelty. This framing ignores the critical expertise of other stakeholders — ecologists, veterinarians, epidemiologists, urban planners, and public health experts — who understand dog population dynamics, rabies epidemiology, and human–animal interactions. Their insights must guide implementation. The Court's directive gives municipalities political cover to act, but how they do so will decide whether this becomes a turning point or a cautionary tale. Large-scale removal of street dogs is not as simple as netting and relocating them. Without proper planning, shelters risk becoming overcrowded warehouses breeding disease, neglect, and public outrage. Quick-fix, unscientific solutions will fail and harm India's credibility internationally. What is needed is a phased, humane approach supported by robust, long-term capacity. Shelters should not be holding pens but well-designed facilities with sustainable capacity, veterinary care, isolation wards, sterilisation units, vaccination clinics, and enrichment spaces. Microchipping, photo identification, or tagging every dog can ensure real enumeration, traceability and prevent them from returning to the streets. Adoption must be central to the plan. Puppies and sociable adults can find homes through public adoption drives, coupled with proper screening and follow-up to prevent repeat abandonment. Beyond rehoming, Indian local dogs should be valued for their resilience and adaptability. They can be trained as guard dogs, search-and-rescue animals, or security partners for police and disaster response teams, changing public perception about them from nuisance to asset. A lasting solution also requires stopping the pipeline of new street dogs. Pet owners must be required to register, sterilise, and vaccinate their dogs, with strict penalties for abandonment. Public campaigns should promote responsible ownership as part of civic duty. Feeding dogs in public without taking responsibility for their health and behaviour is misplaced compassion that sustains the cycle of conflict. Public fear of dogs is real and must be respected, but it should be addressed by tackling the root causes of aggression. Instead of public feeding, contributions can be channelised to the shelter homes to develop a sustainable business model with perennial social benefits and A-class animal welfare. The writer is DBT Wellcome Trust India Alliance Intermediate Fellow, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG), and research affiliate, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
Scroll.in
20 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC criticises ‘completely vague' petitions against Gujarat's Vantara animal rescue centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised two petitions alleging irregularities in animal rescue centre Vantara and the transfer of an ailing elephant from there, describing the pleas as 'completely vague', Live Law reported. However, the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varela allowed the petitioners to amend their submissions, and scheduled the next hearing for August 25. The first petition demanded that a monitoring committee be set up to look into alleged irregularities at the Reliance Foundation-run Vantara, all captive elephants be returned to their owners and all wild animals at the facility be released back to the wild. The petitioner also questioned the transfer of an ailing elephant named Madhuri or Madhavi from the Kolhapur district to Vantara in Gujarat's Jamnagar. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale, however, questioned how the petitioner could make allegations against the animal rescue centre without even making it a party to the plea. 'You implead them [as respondents] and then come back to us we will see,' the court said, according to PTI. In the second petition, the counsel for the petitioners said that Vantara had already been impleaded in the matter. Mithal, however, asked whether the petitioner had approached the Central Zoo Authority before approaching the Supreme Court. 'Don't file such vague petitions,' the court said, according to Live Law. 'We can't even understand the relief you are seeking.' For over 30 years, the elephant Madhuri had been at a Jain monastery, named the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, in Kolhapur's Nandani village. In July, the Bombay High Court ordered Madhuri's rehabilitation to Vantara, and the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the order. The elephant was moved to the Reliance Foundation-run centre in Gujarat on July 30, sparking protests in Kolhapur. On August 5, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said that the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking Madhuri's return to Kolhapur.
The Wire
20 minutes ago
- The Wire
Haryana: Supreme Court-Ordered Vote Recount Reverses 2022 Panchayat Poll Results
New Delhi: A Supreme Court-ordered recount of votes cast in a 2022 gram panchayat election in Haryana's Panipat has resulted in the reversal of results. This is the first exercise of its kind ordered by the Supreme Court. The case stems from panchayat elections held on November 2, 2022 in Panipat's Buana Lakhu village, in which Kuldeep Singh was declared elected over rival Mohit Kumar, the Tribune reported. The votes were recounted by Supreme Court OSD (Registrar) Kaveri in Kumar and Singh's presence and the entire process was recorded on camera. After the exercise was completed, it was found that Kumar had received 1,051 votes against Singh's 1,000 votes. "The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer, Panipat, is, accordingly, directed to issue a notification in this regard within two days declaring the appellant (Mohit Kumar) as the elected Sarpanch of the above-mentioned gram panchayat,' the court said in an order dated August 11. 'The appellant (Mohit Kumar) shall be entitled to assume the said office (of sarpanch) forthwith and perform his duties," the bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N. Kotiswar Singh said. After the November elections, Kumar had filed an election petition challenging the result before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Election Tribunal of Panipat in April. The tribunal on May 7 ordered a recount of votes cast at booth 69 in the village. However, the election tribunal's order was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana high court in July. Kumar then moved the Supreme Court, which ordered a recount of all votes cast at all booths during the panchayat elections. "Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this 1 case, the Deputy Commissioner and the District Election Officer, Panipat, Haryana is directed to produce all EVMs before the Registrar of this Court, to be nominated by the Secretary General, at 10 am on 06.08.2025. The nominated Registrar shall recount the votes, not only of the disputed booth but of all the booths. The recounting shall be duly video-graphed. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 or their authorized agents shall remain present at the time of recounting," the Supreme Court said in its July 31 order. A week later, OSD (Registrar) Kaveri recounted the 3,767 votes cast, after which Kumar emerged as the winner, the report said. 'There being prima facie no reason to doubt the report submitted by the OSD (Registrar) of this court, especially when the entire recounting has been duly video-graphed and its result is signed by the representatives of the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant (Mohit Kumar) deserves to be declared as the elected Sarpanch of the gram panchayat, Buana Lakhu village, District Panipat, Haryana in the election held on 22.11.2022,' the Supreme court said, setting aside the high court's verdict. The court said that the parties can still raise any remaining issues before the election tribunal.
