Congress, CPM oppose Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's Vice-Chancellors' conference
The Tamil Nadu Congress and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) have strongly criticised Governor RN Ravi's move to convene a two-day conference for university Vice-Chancellors and Registrars in Ooty on April 25 and 26.State Congress chief K Selvaperunthagai alleged that the Governor's actions go against the Constitution and the recent Supreme Court ruling, which said a Governor withholding assent to bills indefinitely, is unconstitutional.advertisement'The Governor should have resigned after the Supreme Court's verdict. Convening a conference of Vice-Chancellors without respecting that verdict amounts to disrespecting the Constitution,' Selvaperunthagai posted on social media.
Echoing similar sentiments, CPI(M) state secretary P Shanmugam called for a boycott of the conference, accusing Governor Ravi of acting as an 'RSS agent.''The Supreme Court verdict has curbed the Governor's overreach. Unable to digest the setback, he is trying to stir controversy through this conference,' said Shanmugam.He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed bills removing the Governor as Chancellor of state universities, which was cleared by the Supreme Court. 'Calling a conference now, despite these developments, is unconstitutional,' Shanmugam said, urging the state government to advise Vice-Chancellors not to attend.The top court on April 8 said that the Governor must take a decision within three months, either to assent to a bill, return it to the House, or refer it to the President.advertisementThe Supreme Court held that ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu legislature but were pending governor's clearance, were deemed as having given assent.Amongst the bills passed were Madras University (Amendment) Bill and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (Amendment) Bill which proposed removing the Governor as Chancellor and instead empowering the state to appoint the Vice-Chancellor, reducing the Governor's authority in educational administration.Tune InMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
44 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Did Trump declare martial law amid LA riots? National Guard deployment sparks confusion
President Donald Trump on Saturday announced the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to riots sparked by ICE raids. A White House press release said: "In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. 'These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California's feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.' The decision has sparked tension with California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'purposefully inflammatory.' 'The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,' Newsom wrote on X. 'LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need,' he added. 'The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.' The announcement has caused confusion on social media, with some people mistakenly thinking the National Guard deployment means martial law was declared. The National Guard can be deployed by either a state governor or the President during emergencies like natural disasters or civil unrest. When activated by a governor, the Guard remains under state control. If federalized by the President, it operates under federal authority. Martial law, by contrast, is a rare and extreme measure in which civilian government is temporarily suspended, and military takes over key functions such as law enforcement, courts, and public administration. In the United States, martial law is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. It can be declared by the President during severe crises like rebellion, invasion, or total collapse of civil order. Unlike martial law, deploying the National Guard is a routine emergency response that supports civil authorities without replacing them.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Different gods being used by BJP for political gains: VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan
CHENNAI: TNCC president K Selvaperunthagai and VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan on Saturday accused the BJP of politicising religion by organising a Murugan conference in Madurai while ignoring the principles of social justice. Speaking to reporters at the Chennai airport, Selvaperunthagai said, 'When it comes to social justice, Tamil Nadu stands as a model — not Uttar Pradesh or Gujarat. It is the Congress at the national level and the DMK at the state level that have consistently raised their voice for caste-based census.' Speaking about the BJP's Murugan conference at Madurai, Selvaperunthagi said, 'We are not saying that holding a Murugan conference is wrong. But our question is — will the BJP dare to organise a Murugan conference in Gujarat or Uttar Pradesh? Do they have the courage to tell the people there that a deity named Murugan exists?' VCK chief Thirumavalavan while addressing journalists at the airport, said, 'They are using different gods for political gains — Ram and Ganesha in the north, Durga and Kali in Bengal, and Murugan in Tamil Nadu. But Tamil people will not fall for this.. Even Lord Murugan will reject such divisive politics,' he said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Assam exploring how to ‘push back foreigners' without involving Foreigners Tribunals, Himanta says
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday said that the state government is exploring the possibility of 'pushing back' suspected foreigners into Bangladesh without going through the existing process of identification via Foreigners Tribunals. To support this, he cited a 1950 law, which was issued before the institution of Foreigners Tribunals in the state. He stated that the Supreme Court, while hearing the question of the validity of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, had stated that this law is still in force. 'When the Supreme Court had taken up the matter of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, that was under a Constitutional Bench. The Bench had mentioned that… that the Assam government does not have to keep approaching the judiciary in the matter of identifying foreigners. There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order. The Supreme Court has said that this law is still in force. According to this law, the DC has the authority to issue an order for immediate pushback. For whatever reason, this had not been brought to our notice by our lawyers, and we were not aware of it either. In the past few days, this has come to our attention. So we will discuss this,' he told reporters on the sidelines of an event. Last week, Sarma had confirmed that the state is carrying out 'push backs' of people who had been declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners Tribunals by invoking a February 4 Supreme Court order. The top court had pulled up the state for not initiating the process of deporting declared foreigners lodged in the Matia detention centre. Civil groups as well as sections of opposition parties have argued that these 'push backs' violate the procedures of deportation. On Saturday, Sarma said, 'Pushbacks will continue and the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused because of the NRC (National Register of Citizens), will be sped up again. And this time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we won't send them to a tribunal; we will just keep pushing them back. Preparations for this are going on.' Foreigners Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies which determine whether a person presented before them, usually referred by the border police or those listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls, is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court.
