Kerala moves Supreme Court against Governor's appointment of interim Vice-Chancellor to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
In the case of the appointment of the temporary Vice-Chancellor of the university, law expressly provides for a role for the State Government. When the statute provides a mode of appointment, the same is binding on the Chancellor who is a creation of the very such statute,' the Kerala Government, represented by advocate C.K. Sasi, argued.
Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act requires the Chancellor to act on the advice of the State Government.
The November 27, 2024 notification, issued by the Chancellor, appointing Dr. K. Sivaprasad to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the university, ignoring the recommendation of the government and overlooking the statutory mandate providing for specific persons/officers to be entrusted with such powers, was 'void ab initio and per se illegal', the State contended.
'The provisions of the Act did not bestow any unfettered power or discretion on the Chancellor to appoint any person of his choice to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the university. The powers of the Chancellor in this regard are circumscribed by Section 13(7) of the Act. Moreover, the Chancellor could have acted under Section 13(7) of the Act only on the recommendation of the State Government,' Kerala contended.
The Chancellor appointed Dr. K. Sivaprasad solely according to his choice and not based on the recommendation of the Government. The name was also beyond the zone of choice statutorily prescribed. The Chancellor had also acted in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 2022, which mandated that the Chancellor could not overlook the authority of the State Government to recommend any qualified name for appointment as temporary Vice-Chancellor.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Lok Sabha passes Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill, 2025
The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2025, by a voice vote, despite ongoing protests from Opposition members over the Election Commission's revision of Bihar's electoral rolls. Union Minister for Coal and Mines G Kishan Reddy , during the brief discussion, noted the Bill's importance for the mining sector and India's economic development, particularly in the context of critical and strategic minerals. The new legislation, which seeks to amend the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, introduces several key changes aimed at boosting mineral exploration and production in the country. A major provision is the expansion of the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) under which funds can be used for the exploration and development of mines and minerals both within India (including offshore areas) and outside the country. This move is seen as a strategic step to secure critical mineral assets abroad. The Bill also mandates an increase in the amount paid to the Trust by lessees. The payment will rise from the current 2 per cent of the royalty payable to 3 per cent. The trust will also be renamed as the National Mineral Exploration and Development Trust, reflecting its widened scope.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Citizenship is in Parliament's domain, but ECI can include citizens and exclude non-citizens as voters: SC
While holding that the Election Commission of India (ECI) can decide to include a citizen in the voter list or exclude a non-citizen from it, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed dissatisfaction with the norm of prospective voters merely having to furnish a declaration that they are citizens for inclusion in the list. 'Law regarding conferment of citizenship or taking away of citizenship will have to be enacted by the Parliament. No debate is required on that. But once that law has been made and in terms of that if somebody has been acknowledged or recognised as citizen, inclusion of that person in the voters list and a person who has not been recognised as citizen and who is not a citizen, exclusion of that person, that has to be undertaken by the commission only,' said Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench hearing petitions challenging the ECI's special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar. The top court said that self-declaration of citizenship may lead to legal complications and added that the ECI can verify their authenticity. The remarks came as senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for some petitioners, told the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi that it was not within the remit of the ECI to decide on citizenship. Singhvi questioned the ECI's reluctance to consider Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) and said, 'very clear that ECI does not want to look at them because they say it's insufficient for determining citizenship. Otherwise, there's no reason.' Justice Kant pointed out that it's not the ECI but the Aadhaar Act which says that the unique identification number is not proof of citizenship. Singhvi said, 'This entire exercise is without jurisdiction. Because the ECI has converted itself into an agency that flags citizenship.' The senior counsel said, 'My proposition is determination of citizenship is an exercise which does not fall in domain of the ECI at all. They can't say before 2 months in a 9-10 crore (voter) election, we are doing SIR and we will remove you on the grounds of citizenship. It is true that you have to decide citizenship to be ultimately on the roll. But 5 crore people are already in the roll after 2003 (revision). Their removal on grounds of citizenship or lack of it has to follow a procedure, which is not with them…The argument is that from 2003-2025, there is 'presumptive exclusion' unless ECI on the basis of its test finds them to be citizens. Presumptively, you are held not to be a citizen till you show otherwise,' he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing for the petitioners, said, 'They (ECI) admit that no inquiry was conducted to ascertain whether these people (who are exempted from the draft roll on the ground of death, migration to other places, etc) are indeed dead or migrated.' Sibal added that these are people who were there in the 2003 rolls drawn up after a revision. 'And since then 22 lakh have died!' he said. Justice Bagchi, however, said, 'There is a degree of intensity in a summary revision vis-à-vis an intensive revision. So inclusion in a summary revision role does not give you a carte blanche to be in an intensive revision draft roll.' On Aadhaar and ration cards, Justice Kant said, 'One is furnishing of documents. Second is verification. Today if I attach a fake Aadhar or a fake ration card, they have a right to verify…'. Sibal said prima facie, there is an assumption in favour of the person submitting them that these are valid documents. 'Yes, but if you attach a document, it requires consideration, verification,' said Justice Kant. Referring to those who have been left out of the draft roll, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), pointed out that the ECI had said in its affidavit that 'we have given some of this information to the booth-level agents (BLAs) of recognised political parties'. 'They say they are not obliged to give to anyone else,' he added. Bhushan further said, 'Today, what they have done is something mischievous. Until August 4, the draft of the roll was searchable. After August 4, the document is not searchable. They say, go and ask the BLAs of the political party. Why should I, as a citizen, not know from their document and should ask an agent of the political party?' Justice Kant agreed that 'voters and all bona fide citizens have a right' to know. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, said ADR had filed a 'speculative petition'. He added, 'They must await the completion of the exercise.' Singhvi said, 'Electoral roll is presumptively held not to be valid solely on grounds of citizenship. You cannot have a system where citizenship is doubted for 5 crore people unless…presumption is he's a valid citizen unless they follow procedure and remove…' Justice Kant said, 'Up to 2003, there's no dispute. Those who are on voter list, they are not required to submit any documents. Mr Dwivedi is saying those who were voters till 2003, their children also are not required to give documents.' Singhvi said, 'When elections are 2.5 months away, what they have done is- they have issued a presumptive negative declaration…and said that to become valid on existing roll on which you are sitting, these people…I am only on the presumption in a squeezed time frame. Look at the object of all this. You declare 5 crore people to be not valid and give them 2.5 months!' Justice Kant said, 'If they declare 5 crore people invalid, we are sitting here. We would definitely like to examine.' Praying for an interim relief, Singvi said, 'We estimate that if you ask for certificates…maybe 1, maybe 2 crore will be invalid. Now we can't wait till we come back in September and Your Lordships is told now the Model Code of Conduct is in force, elections are around the corner. They are in a scrambling mode.' Justice Kant said the process can be invalidated even in September if the court finds it is not lawful. 'So what? Can't we set it aside even in September even if we have a lurking suspicion about the procedure followed by the ECI?' Bhushan said, 'What we have shown (in the petition) is that a very large number of people who find themselves in the draft roll are dead persons, 300 people living in one house, etc. Now they are saying those who are not in the draft list, they will have to fill up a Form 6.' Bhushan said, 'Earlier, even if someone was applying as a fresh voter, they only have to give a self-declaration that they are citizens. Thereafter, if someone challenges and produces some material, they can remove. That's all. They do not have to give any document for showing that he or she is a citizen.' Justice Kant said, 'That may be legally difficult, that simply somebody says that I am writing that I am a citizen.' The judge said the litigation 'largely' seemed to be 'a case of trust deficiency'. Activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav, who also addressed the court, said, 'This is the first revision exercise in the whole country where there is zero addition and there are only omissions.' He said Bihar has an adult population of 8.18 crore and that when there should have been more voters, 65 lakhs have been excluded. Yadav contended that mass disenfranchisement has already taken place, adding that it did not happen due to the failure of the SIR but that the process was designed for the purpose. 'With one stroke, the percentage of adults eligible to vote in Bihar has come down to 88 per cent already. There would be further deletions now,' he contended. Yadav added that the number of women voters who have been excluded is more than that of men.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Hope this is implemented strictly': Families of dog bite victims welcome SC order; ask those opposing to adopt
Photo/PTI On June 30, six-year-old Chhavi Sharma, known as Bittu, was bitten by a stray dog while walking to her aunt's house in northwest Delhi's Pooth Kalan. Her family says the dog attacked without provocation, leaving her bleeding on the doorstep. She was taken to Dr B R Ambedkar Hospital for anti-rabies treatment, but her health worsened in mid-July. On July 21, her first day back at school, she began vomiting, lost strength in her limbs, and stopped speaking. Four days later, just before she was due for her final vaccine dose, she died. For her family, the Supreme Court's order on Monday to remove stray dogs from all Delhi localities and place them in shelters is not only a policy decision but also a form of justice. "We don't want even our enemies to go through what we underwent. With the Supreme Court's decision, we believe that our child's death has not gone in vain," said Krishna Devi, Chhavi's aunt, as quoted by PTI. "I feel like my child is the change. I hope there are no more Chhavis, who are hurt elsewhere. Nobody should go through the cruel fate we underwent," she said. The Supreme Court described the stray dog situation in Delhi as 'extremely grim' and directed the Delhi government and civic bodies to immediately start picking up stray dogs and keeping them in shelters. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like NRIs Living In Bulgaria Are Eligible For INR 2 Lakh Monthly Pension. Invest 18K/Month Get Offer Undo It also warned of strict action against anyone obstructing the process. Chhavi's family said the order brought them some relief. "We heard about the Supreme Court's verdict on TV. The first thing we felt was a sigh of relief. Now I hope they take these animals to places where they can't hurt us," Krishna Devi was quoted as saying by news agency PTI. "Just like gaushalas (cowsheds) are built for cows, something must be built for these dogs. We are not fighting the animals; we just want them kept separate so they don't hurt us. And those who feed them should be made accountable — they feed them on the streets and leave, and these dogs form packs and chase children," she added. Another family in the city has also faced a similar incident. Dheeraj Ahuja, a resident of Ashok Vihar, said his seven-year-old son, who often fed stray dogs, was mauled by one in their neighbourhood. "We welcome this Supreme Court order. It is a great, though delayed, step. My son, who is in Class 7, had to take 10 injections. The child who once fed these dogs was brutally attacked," he said, as quoted by PTI. Ahuja also addressed those opposing the order. "They should come forward, adopt these dogs and keep them in their homes. Our suffering is personal and we hope this is implemented strictly," he added.
