Kerala Governor names two interim VCs in universities, CM asks him to cancel appointments
The Kerala Governor, acting as Chancellor, had on Friday reappointed Dr Ciza Thomas and Dr K Sivaprasad as interim vice chancellors of State Digital University and J Abdul Kalam Technological University respectively.
According to a Raj Bhavan communique, the appointments comply with the Apex Court's July 30 order on an appeal by the Governor against a High Court verdict in favour of the state government.
Meanwhile, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, shot off a letter to the Governor demanding the cancellation of the appointments as it was not done in accordance with the Acts of the two universities and was against the essence of the SC verdict, official sources said.
The Chief Minister had in the morning sent a letter to the Governor seeking the posting of permanent VCs to the two universities in consultation with the government in the light of the latest SC verdict, the sources said.
He also said in the letter that the Higher Education Minister and Law Minister would seek an appointment with the Governor to discuss the issue, the sources added.
Addressing reporters here, Kerala Industries and Law Minister P Rajeev said the Governor had not only ignored the panel of names submitted by the government, but also challenged the essence of the Supreme Court verdict that suggested that VC appointments should be made in consultation with the government.
"This is a serious issue. A person holding a high Constitutional position is challenging the Supreme Court verdict which clearly says that the appointment of VCs should be made in accordance with the provisions in the Acts of the respective universities," Rajeev said.
The minister said the High Court had nullified the appointment of the temporary VCs to Digital University and Technical University citing this very reason.
State Higher Education Minister R Bindu alleged that the Governor had bypassed the Supreme Court's suggestion to reach a consensus with the government on the appointment of vice chancellors.
The postings have now been made by misinterpreting the SC verdict, she said.
'The Governor is appointing people loyal to RSS in the universities as part of a political agenda,' Bindu alleged.
She said the Governor is trying to create a situation wherein the government has no role in the functioning of universities functioning with public funds.
Bindu said the government would seek legal opinion before proceeding further on the issue.
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader in the Kerala Assembly V D Satheesan said it is up to the government to take initiative to solve the issues with the Governor.
He said two vice chancellors who took part in the 'Jnana Sabha' conducted by the RSS in Kochi were appointed by the Left government.
'The issues with the Governor are often created when the government is facing some crisis, in order to deflect attention from other serious issues,' he alleged.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC proposes panel to manage Banke Bihari temple till HC decides on UP ordinance
. New Delhi: Supreme Court on Monday proposed an interim committee, headed by a retired high court judge and comprising the district collector and Goswamis (pujaris), for management of Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan till Allahabad HC decides the validity of UP govt's ordinance for all-round development of the temple area to provide facilities to pilgrims. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked additional solicitor general K M Nataraj to seek state govt's response by Tuesday morning, when it will take up a batch of petitions that have questioned the manner in which state govt, prompted by an SC order, had come out with a temple development project proposed to be implemented at a cost of Rs 500 crore. The Goswamis, through senior advocate Shyam Divan, said taking over of the temple through an ordinance was extraordinary as the issue was not before constitutional courts, which were only dealing with alleged mismanagement of Guriraj temple. In the guise of better management of temples in the 'Braj area', the SC passed an order without even hearing temple Goswamis, which prompted the state to issue the ordinance, they said. The bench agreed that such an order without hearing the Goswamis could not have been passed. However, the Justice Kant-led bench said, "It is only for development of the temple and its surroundings. The state's intention does not appear to siphon out temple funds but to spend it on providing facilities to pilgrims." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Andrea Bergs Auto schockiert die ganze Welt, Beweis in Fotos! Weight Loss Groove Undo Divan said Banke Bihari temple was a private temple and any law brought about by govt or any order passed by courts could not have been without hearing the Goswamis, who have been managing it for centuries. The bench saw a point in Divan's argument and said, "The state cannot be seen coming to the court in a clandestine manner and getting an order set aside in a case which had nothing to do with Banke Bihari temple. We will set aside that part of the order, set up an interim committee to manage the temple and permit the HC to decide the legality of the ordinance." However, the bench was in favour of development around the temple to provide space for parking and places to stay for pilgrims with all facilities. "Religious tourism is assuming great importance. It can also be a big revenue earner and help in job creation. But there has to be adequate facilities to handle pilgrims," it said. The interim committee may also have to induct representatives of Archaeological Survey of India as well as independent architects proficient in ancient building restoration to protect the temple, the bench said.
United News of India
38 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC extends interim relief to Madrasas facing derecognition over RTE compliance
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today extended interim protection to madrasas whose recognition was withdrawn following directions from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for alleged non-compliance with the Right to Education Act, 2009. The court was hearing a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenging the Commission's directives. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh stated that the interim protection already granted would continue and suggested that the petitioner could approach the concerned High Court for further relief. "We will extend the protection and allow you to approach the High Court," the bench observed, while clarifying that the Court was not entering into the merits of the case at this stage. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioner, contended that the issue involved broader questions of law and deserved an in-depth hearing. She noted that a prior order by a three-judge bench had stayed similar directions and urged the Court to keep the matter under its consideration. She also requested additional time to decide on whether to move the High Court. Justice Sundresh remarked, 'What is there to file when we are not examining the merits right now?' Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Advocate Siddharth Sangal, reiterated that the apex court had already signalled that such issues could be adjudicated at the High Court level. Taking note of the submissions, the Court recorded, 'We put it to the senior counsel for the petitioner that an approach can be made to the High Court with sufficient interim protection. Let her take instructions. List after three weeks.' Earlier, on October 21, 2024, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had granted a stay on letters issued by the NCPCR in June 2024. These letters directed the Centre and state governments including Uttar Pradesh and Tripura, to withdraw recognition from madrasas allegedly violating the RTE Act. The Court also stayed subsequent communications from the Ministry of Education and state authorities, ruling that these directions 'shall not be acted upon.' The petitioner was permitted to implead all States and Union Territories and make necessary amendments within a week, with liberty to serve notices to their respective standing counsel. The matter will now be listed again after three weeks, pending further instructions from the petitioners. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC to Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel, son: Move HC to challenge ED chargesheet
Bhupesh Baghel NEW DELHI: Disappointing former Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel and his son, Supreme Court on Monday asked them to move high court to challenge Enforcement Directorate 's allegedly illegal practice of filing incomplete chargesheets in money laundering cases to keep the probe open-ended, and keep them apprehensive about their possible arrest at any time. Baghel said since 2019, there had been six ECIRs filed by ED under PMLA relating to Nagrik Apurti Nigam (PDS), income tax, District Mineral Fund, coal levy, Mahadev betting and Chhattisgarh liquor cases. In all these cases, there was a constant threat of his arrest, he said. Appearing for him and his son, senior advocates A M Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi told a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that filing of multiple incomplete chargesheets, on the specious ground that the probe was ongoing, was illegal since it was mandatory for ED to take permission of the magistrate to carry out further investigation. The bench said, "This abnormality of rushing directly to Supreme Court is becoming chronic, especially when cases involve affluent and influential people. If you are seeking quashing of the FIRs or chargesheets on grounds of irregularity on part of the agency, then you must move the HC." Singhvi and Rohatgi withdrew their petitions. In another petition by Baghel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that the former CM was challenging the constitutional validity of PMLA sections 50 and 63. "The framework u/s 50(2) and 50(3) of PMLA infringes upon the fundamental rights against self incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3)... The aforesaid provisions permit ED to summon any person and compel answers and production of documents under a threat of penalty u/s 63 of the Act and arrest under Section 19 of the Act," Sibal said. Appearing for ED, additional solicitor general S V Raju said these petitions were not maintainable as the former CM had not been named in any of the ECIRs.
