Supreme Court lifts stay on Odisha University Act, 2024; appointments to resume
BHUBANESWAR : The Supreme Court has lifted the interim stay imposed on Odisha University (Amendment) Act, 2020, which had stalled the appointment of vice-chancellors and faculty members in the state's public universities for the last five years.
This was informed by Higher Education minister Suryabanshi Suraj on Thursday. With the order which was passed on Wednesday, the appointments can now be made in accordance with the new Odisha University (Amendment) Act, 2024, the minister said.
'The order confirms that the previous government's decision to amend the Odisha University Act was flawed and violated the University Grants Commission's guidelines. With this, the appointments will resume under the framework of the Odisha University (Amendment) Act, 2024,' he added.
The minister further said that expeditious steps would be taken to fill the vacant posts of vice-chancellors and faculty members. 'Priority will now be placed on ensuring university autonomy, preserving academic culture and accelerating the recruitment process,' he added.
As of now, of the 2,003 sanctioned strength of professor, associate professor and assistant professor in 17 public universities of the state, 1,307 positions are vacant. Only 696 faculty members are in position while the rest are being handled by guest faculty members.
On the other hand, tenure of three vice-chancellors has been extended by another six months. The vice-chancellors are Sabita Acharya of Utkal University, Aparajita Chowdhury of Ramadevi Women's University and N Nagaraju of Gangadhar Meher University. Their tenure was due to end in the last week of November last year.
In April this year, the Odisha Universities (Amendment) Bill 2024 was passed by the Assembly after a marathon discussion of more than 12 hours. 'The new amendment law has been framed in alignment with UGC guidelines to strengthen the higher education system in Odisha. This marks a new dawn in Odisha's higher education landscape,' the minister said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Cash for bail case: Rouse Avenue Court record keeper takes back Delhi HC bail petition
NEW DELHI: A record keeper (ahlmad) posted at Rouse Avenue Court, accused of accepting bribes from undertrials to secure bail, has withdrawn his anticipatory bail plea from the Delhi High Court. Mukesh Kumar, who is under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), withdrew his plea on Wednesday, the day arguments were scheduled. Justice Tejas Karia allowed the withdrawal, granting liberty to file a fresh plea in the future. Appearing for Kumar, Advocate Ayush Jain requested the Court to direct the ACB to issue proper notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code before requiring the accused to join the investigation. He also sought permission for an advocate to be present during Kumar's statement. The ACB, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, assured the Court that all legal procedures would be followed. The bail withdrawal comes amidst growing scrutiny. The High Court had recently transferred a Special Judge of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act from Rouse Avenue to North-West Rohini after the allegations against Kumar surfaced. Kumar was booked by the ACB on May 16 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the agency, he allegedly demanded and accepted bribes from accused persons in return for facilitating their bail.
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The battle today is not for the abstract ideals of Constitution — it is for democracy itself
Written by Anmol Jain 'Samvidhan khatre mein hai' has been the rallying cry of Congress since the beginning of its campaign for the 2024 general elections. After the polls, the party doubled down on this narrative, directing its state units to conduct Samvidhan Bachao rallies across the country. Several such rallies were organised in April and May in many states, including Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. On June 8, the Yatra began in Goa. Over the past year, Congress has left no occasion to assert that our Constitution is under threat. But a deeper, more pressing question must be asked, not just by the Opposition, but by every citizen: If the Constitution is in danger, what exactly needs to be rescued, safeguarded, and nourished? The complexity of the question demands that we ascribe an identity to the Constitution. And this identity is connected to another core idea of the Republic: Democracy. From the abuse of constitutional offices like that of the Governor — as the Supreme Court emphasised in the Tamil Nadu Governor case — to the trampling of rights, threats to the foundational essence of democracy are real. Notably, it is often rooted in constitutional structures and silences. For instance, the Constitution does not explicitly ask the Governor or the Speaker to shed all partisan loyalties in their functioning. However, our demand that they rise above party lines stems from the democratic values the Constitution is meant to embody. The Constitution, in this sense, becomes an accessible language through which we reassert and reinforce democratic values in public discourse. However, this language is gradually losing its resonance. When the essence of constitutional arrangements is repeatedly subverted for short-term political gain, non-constitutional justifications begin to suffice. And when courts do intervene, often the independent institutions are blamed, but not the style of governance. So, the political and intellectual struggle today cannot be framed merely as a defence of the Constitution. It must go deeper and become a struggle to resurface, reiterate, and reassert the 'identity' of the Constitution and the democratic values it is meant to uphold. And to do so, we must shift the pivot of the discourse from 'Constitution' to 'Democracy'. There are two long-term dangers to the overreliance on the Constitution as the central narrative. The first is political. If those raising the slogan today come to power, they would find it difficult to pursue the structural changes necessary for democratic repair. Any attempt to redesign constitutional structures and institutions, however justified, would risk the charge of hypocrisy. Having opposed constitutional change while in opposition, they would be accused of undermining it once in office. They might also face the slogan 'Samvidhan khatre mein hai.' The second is intellectual. An overemphasis on the Constitution risks stifling critical engagement with it. After all, constitutional provisions were used to enable the imposition of Emergency, legitimise central executive dominance, and allow repeated rights violations. In light of what the country has experienced over the past 75 years, a critical, reflective engagement with the Constitution is not only desirable, it is essential. But such a critique becomes difficult when the Constitution is treated as a flawless relic that must be defended at all cost. Any discourse rooted in democracy is politically sharper. It is far harder for incumbents to deflect an opposition narrative grounded in loktantra. The government is, no doubt, elected constitutionally and acts largely within formal constitutional bounds. But that is precisely the issue: Constitutional form is being used to mask democratic erosion. The Constitution remains intact, but democracy appears to be backsliding. This distinction is crucial. The battle today is not for the Constitution in the abstract. It is for democracy itself. The writer teaches law Jindal Global Law School. He was the 2023-24 Fox International Fellow at Yale University and Melbourne Law School
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
SC bail to man booked for inter-faith marriage
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man who was booked by the Uttarakhand Police under the anti-conversion law for marrying a woman of another faith. In February this year, the Uttarakhand High Court had refused to enlarge the accused Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary on bail, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court. An FIR was lodged with Rudrapur Police Station of Udham Singh Nagar district against the appellant under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and Sections 318(4) and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023. The appellant's counsel contended that a frivolous complaint was lodged since the accused married a woman who follows a different faith. Further, it was submitted that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage, and the families of both sides voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the appellant with the woman. The FIR was registered soon after certain persons and organisations objected to the inter-faith marriage. Although the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant, he remained in jail for nearly six months. In its judgement, the apex court observed that the respondent state government cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families. It clarified that the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the appellant would not come in the way of him and his wife residing together on their own volition. 'In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted to the appellant herein,' a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chand Sharma ordered. Allowing the appeal, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench ordered the appellant to be produced before the trial court concerned as early as possible, which will release him on bail, subject to such conditions as the trial court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the criminal case. It also directed the appellant to extend 'complete cooperation' in the ensuing trial and not to misuse his liberty. 'Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant,' the top court cautioned.
