Tamil Nadu approaches SC against Madras High Court stay on vice chancellor appointment laws
The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order that stayed nine Acts related to the appointment of vice-chancellors in state-run universities, The Hindu reported.
On May 21, the High Court ordered a stay on the Acts despite an April 8 verdict in the Supreme Court that declared that the bills would be deemed to have received the governor's assent from the date they were passed a second time by the legislature.
Most of the bills are related to higher education, including measures to remove the governor as chancellor of state universities.
The state government had notified the Acts after the April 8 verdict.
However, a public interest litigation petition was filed in the Madras High Court on May 12 against the constitutional validity of the Acts, according to The Hindu. On May 21, the High Court stayed the Acts on the ground that the 2018 University Grants Commission Regulations would prevail over state legislation by virtue of the doctrine of repugnancy.
The doctrine of repugnancy in Article 254 of the Constitution says that if a state law is inconsistent with a central law or an existing law, the central law prevails, and the state law is void to the extent of the conflict.
In its petition filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu government said that there was a strong presumption of constitutionality against the laws passed by the legislature, The Hindu reported.
'Courts should be slow in passing interim orders in matters challenging constitutionality of provisions and against the strong presumption of constitutionality,' the petition said. 'The High Court passed an interim order directing stay of operation of provisions which take away power of appointment of vice chancellor from the hands of the chancellor and vest the same in the government.'
It also noted that a vacation bench of the High Court had entertained a writ petition from a lawyer belonging to a political party, adding that an order was passed without granting an opportunity to the state government to defend its case, The Hindu reported.
'The matter was heard during vacations till 6.30 pm, beyond court hours, and the impugned order was passed,' the state government said.
The petition also flagged issues pertaining to judicial impropriety and discipline in keeping a hands-off approach.
The Supreme Court's ruling on April 8 came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for over three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president.
Of the 10 re-enacted bills sent to the president in November 2023, one was approved, seven were rejected and two were pending.
The Supreme Court held that Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 bills, some of which were pending since January 2020, and refer them to the president after they were re-enacted by the Assembly was ' illegal and erroneous '.
It declared that the 10 bills would be deemed to have received the governor's assent from the date they were passed a second time by the legislature. It also set aside any action taken by the president based on the governor's reference.
In its 414-page judgement, the Supreme Court also imposed a three-month deadline on the president to approve or reject such bills.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
37 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Bangladesh will hold general elections in April 2026, announces Muhammad Yunus
Bangladesh will hold its next general election in the first half of April 2026, announced Muhammad Yunus, the head of the country's interim government, on Friday, according to The Daily Star. During a televised address on the eve of Bakri Eid, Yunus said that the Election Commission would announce the roadmaps to the polls 'at an appropriate time', reported Prothom Alo. 'The government has held discussions with all parties to organise the most free, fair, competitive and acceptable elections in history,' he was quoted as saying by The Daily Star. Following the announcement, the National Citizen Party, Bangladesh's first student-led political party established in February, said it would not object to holding the national election 'if reforms and justice are made visible to ensure a level playing field and neutrality of the administration'. 'But the reforms must be visible before the election is organised, and in line with national expectations, a Constituent Assembly election must be arranged to implement a new Constitution,' Akhter Hossen, the member secretary of the party, was quoted as saying by The Daily Star. Yunus, a Nobel laureate economist, took over as chief adviser of Bangladesh's interim government three days after Sheikh Hasina resigned as the prime minister and fled to India on August 5. Hasina fled after several weeks of widespread student-led protests against her Awami League government. She was ousted from power after being the prime minister of Bangladesh for 16 years. On Friday, Yunus said that by the time elections are held, Bangladesh will see progress in the trial against Hasina on charges of crimes against humanity. 'We want elections that will satisfy the souls of the martyrs of the uprising and bring peace to their souls,' he said. 'We want the largest number of voters, candidates and parties to participate in the next elections.' On June 1, Hasina was charged in the country's International Crimes Tribunal with crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the protests against her government in July and August. Hasina has been charged with having instigated mass killings during protests against her Awami League government.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Assam teacher ‘pushed' into Bangladesh returns home two weeks after being detained
Assam teacher Khairul Islam, who had been 'pushed' into Bangladesh on May 27 after picked by state border police, has returned to his ancestral home in Morigaon. His family told Scroll that he had reached home on Thursday evening. 'I pray that Muslims in Assam can remain in peace,' Islam told Scroll from his home at Khandapukhuri village on Eid. As Scroll had reported, the 51-year-old former government teacher had been detained his home on the night of May 23 by the border police and forced out of Indian territory along the Bangladesh border four days later along with 13 others who were claimed to be 'infiltrators'. In a video posted on Facebook a Bangladeshi journalist from Bangladesh's Rangpur division on May 27, Khairul Islam Islam could standing in a field between Assam's South Salamar district and Bangladesh's Kurigram district 'I told the Assam police that I am a teacher and asked them to respect me,' Islam had told the journalist. 'My hands were tied like I was a thief and I was made to sit in the bus. Around 4 am, I reached here.' Until December, Islam had been a teacher in a government school. In 2016, he had been declared a foreigner by a tribunal. Two years later, the Gauhati High Court upheld the tribunal's decision. Islam spent two years in Assam's Matia detention centre and was released on bail in August 2020. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision is pending. On Saturday, he described his ordeal to Scroll. 'I was taken by the police and the same police brought me home,' he said. On May 23, the Morigaon police to the office of the superintendent of police. He was then moved to the Matia detention camp, Islam said. A few days later, the Border Security Force took him from the camp and released him the no-man's land between India and Bangladesh. 'I spent two days in the no man's land,' Islam said. The group was eventually taken to a camp of the Bangladesh Border Guard. he said. 'A few days later, the BGB brought seven of us in the border from where the police took me in custody,' Islam said. 'I was in Assam police custody since we crossed the border from Bangladesh to India and they released me on Thursday evening.' He added: 'I don't exactly remember how many days we were in three days,' he said. 'There was no sleep on our eyes during those days. How don't know how we spent those days. I don't even remember. Days and nights were same.' Islam alleged that he had been beaten in Matia camp when he refused to get into a bus that he knew was heading for the border. '…I'm an Indian so why would I go to Bangladesh?' he said. 'When I told them that, they hit me inside the Matia Detention camp.' After Islam was picked up, his family had filed an application before the Morigaon superintendent of police seeking his release, attaching all the relevant documents. 'The SP had assured that he would be back within two-four days,' Islam's wife Rita Khanam said. Islam's family is happy that he is home on Eid but Islam said no other Indian should face the ordeal he had been put through. 'I'm saying that an Indian should not be harassed like this and sent to no man's land by their own country like this,' Islam said. 'We are not Bangladeshi. We are swadesi. We have all the documents. They should check this and they should verify this before doing such acts. This is injustice and there will be judgement for this one day.' 'Malik ekojn ase,' Islam said. The Almighty will give us justice.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays trial against former Haryana IAS officer in Manesar land case
The Supreme Court has stayed trial proceedings against former Haryana IAS officer Rajeev Arora in the Manesar land deal, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The former IAS officer had petitioned the apex court after his revision petition challenging his summoning by a special CBI court was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana high court on May 15. A special CBI court had on December 1, 2020 ordered that the former IAS officer be summoned to face trial for committing offence under section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the Manesar land matter. However, on a revision petition filed by Arora, the Punjab and Haryana high court on December 14, 2020 had stayed the operation and implementation of the order of the special CBI court. Rejecting the challenge to the special CBI court's December 1, 2020 order, the HC on May15 said it found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned special CBI court in summoning the petitioners. An apex court bench headed by chief justice BR Gavai, however, on May 29 ordered that notice be issued to the respondents and 'proceedings qua the petitioner (Rajeev Arora) shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing.' During the trial court proceedings on Friday, Special CBI judge, Rajeev Goyal while referring to the apex court's order of May 29 ordered that proceedings against all the accused persons except Rajeev Arora shall commence. The special court in its June 6 order noted that it is, therefore, seen that all the accused except accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba, DR Dhingra and Rajeev Arora, have been ordered to be charge-sheeted qua the offences as detailed in the order December 1, 2020. The court said that now arguments need to be advanced on charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. Learned defence counsels seek time to prepare the arguments. Learned senior public prosecutor Harsh Mohan Singh submits that charge-sheet may kindly be framed against the accused persons who have already been ordered to be charge-sheeted vide order dated December 1,2020. 'I am not able to accept the submission made by the senior public prosecutor as it will not be appropriate to frame charge-sheet before considering the case concerning framing of charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. In case, the court after hearing contentions of the said accused persons and senior public prosecutor for CBI, concludes that charges are required to be framed against said accused persons as well, then a consolidated charge-sheet qua all the accused persons shall be framed and in my opinion, it will be more appropriate if such a course is adopted, for framing charge-sheet in a piecemeal manner is not desirable. As such, to come up on July 10, 2025 for arguments on charge qua accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra,'' ordered the special court.
