SC-monitored VC selection a blow to Kerala govt, Raj Bhavan senses upper hand
The reconstituted panel, with four members owing allegiance to the government and no nominee of the chancellor (governor), was meant to give the ruling dispensation a greater leverage in the VC selection process.
Notably, the hurry on the part of the government to get the ordinance promulgated was reportedly owing to the possibility of the draft UGC Regulations, 2025, coming into effect soon.
The government's role in the VC selection process has been drastically cut down in the latest UGC regulations. On the other hand, the Raj Bhavan is of the view that the present arrangement has set the long-stalled process rolling and also given it a greater role in VC selection.
With the apex court asking both the government and the chancellor to give four names each for constituting a search committee for the two varsities, legal experts say it is likely that the panel would have two members each from both sides. The fifth member would be the nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC) as laid down in the regulations.
'Going by past instances, the UGC nominee would mostly prefer to endorse the panel of VC probables proposed by the search committee members nominated by the chancellor,' said a top source.
This is expected to give the chancellor an upper-hand in the five-member panel, it is pointed out.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
18 minutes ago
- First Post
Brazil's ex-President Bolsonaro leaves house arrest for medical exams ahead of coup trial
Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro briefly left house arrest on Saturday to undergo medical tests in Brasilia, weeks before the Supreme Court rules on whether he plotted a coup to stay in power after his 2022 election defeat. Brazil's ex-president Jair Bolsonaro left his home where he is under house arrest Saturday to undergo medical exams, weeks before the Supreme Court rules whether he is guilty of plotting a coup. The right-wing politician is accused of attempting to hold power despite his 2022 electoral defeat by Brazil's current leftist leader, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro, 70, has been under house arrest since early August for violating a judicial ban on using social networks to plead his case to the public. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A judge agreed to temporarily lift that measure so he could get medical attention for what Bolsonaro's attorneys said were gastrointestinal problems resulting from a 2018 stabbing attack while he campaigned for president. In particular, their request noted his chronic 'reflux and hiccup symptoms' and need to go to hospital for tests, including an intestinal endoscopy. Bolsonaro arrived on Saturday morning at a medical center in the capital Brasilia, where he briefly greeted around 20 supporters waiting for him outside with Brazilian, Israeli and US flags. He did not address journalists who were also gathered. Bolsonaro was permitted by the court to remain in hospital for eight hours before returning to his Brasilia residence. Brazil's Supreme Court will begin deciding on September 2 on the coup charges against Bolsonaro, who led Latin America's largest country from 2019 to 2022. He faces up to 40 years in prison if found guilty. Bolsonaro has maintained his innocence and earned support from US President Donald Trump, who has called the trial a 'witch hunt.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Citing Bolsonaro's 'politically motivated persecution,' Trump has signed an executive order slapping 50 percent tariffs on many Brazilian imports.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Uphaar tragedy: Rs 60 crore paid by Ansal brothers for trauma centre utilised at 3 hospitals, says Delhi govt
The Delhi government has informed the Supreme Court that the Rs 60 crore paid by the Ansal brothers for constructing a trauma centre in memory of the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy victims has been utilised at three government hospitals. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency According to an affidavit filed in the apex court, the three hospitals are Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital, Narela, and Siraspur Hospital. These hospitals were selected for the establishment of trauma centres based on urgent public need in the high-density and underserved regions of Delhi, it said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo "It is further submitted that while the original direction of this court referred to the construction of a trauma centre at a suitable location in Dwarka, at the time there existed no GNCTD hospital in Dwarka where such a trauma centre could be established. "However, the Indira Gandhi Hospital, located in Sector 9, Dwarka, has since been constructed and became functional on May 10, 2021. Live Events "The hospital has a total bed capacity of 1,241, including 330 ICU beds, and is fully operational, benefitting the residents of Dwarka and surrounding areas," the affidavit said. The Delhi government submitted that it has gone beyond the original directions by establishing trauma centres at three different locations to maximise public benefit. AVUT office-bearer Neelam Krishnamoothy, who lost her two children in the 1997 tragedy in which 59 people were killed, had earlier said, "It is outrageous to hear the Delhi government claim in the Supreme Court that the Rs 60 crore has already been utilised despite the court's categorical direction that these funds were to be used solely for building a trauma centre in memory of the Uphaar victims at a suitable site in Dwarka." On May 7, the top court issued a notice to the Delhi government, seeking its response on an application filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT). AVUT's plea said, "While about 10 years have elapsed since the stipulated fine amount was deposited (by the Ansal brothers) with the office of the chief secretary, government of NCT of Delhi, on November 9, 2015, the trauma centre envisaged in this court's directions remain a nonstarter, with no discernable steps having been taken towards its construction." On September 22, 2015, the top court directed that the trauma centre was required to be completed within two years in memory of the fire victims in the Dwarka area. The AVUT alleged the Delhi government flouted the apex court's order. The apex court in September 2015 held the Ansal brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, guilty of causing death due to negligence for the fire incident of June 13, 1997, at the Uphar cinema hall. Apart from the one-year sentence the two brothers had to undergo, the top court also fined them Rs 60 crore. AVUT's application was filed in its pending appeal challenging a Delhi High Court order of December 2008 reducing the two-year sentence awarded to Ansals by the trial court to one year. The duo was convicted under Sections 304A (causing death due to negligence), 337 (endangering life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt), among other provisions, of the IPC. Initially, the top court's two-judge bench, which heard the appeal, delivered a split verdict on March 5, 2014. The matter was then heard by a three-judge bench, which reduced the Rs 100 crore fine to Rs 60 crore, to be shared equally by the two brothers. AVUT subsequently filed a review petition, which the top court dismissed in February 2017. The top court, however, reiterated that the Rs 60 crore amount was to be paid to the chief secretary of the Delhi government, to be utilised for the construction of a trauma centre dedicated in the memory of the victims.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Can't assume powers Constitution has not vested': Centre warns Supreme Court against judicial overreach
Opposing the Supreme Court fixing a three-month timeline for the President and governor to act on bills forwarded by the state legislature, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has said that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy and 'if any organ [of state] is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder…'. In written submissions to the court, where a five-judge bench is hearing a reference made by the President on whether time schedules can be fixed for the actions of the President or governor, on August 12, Mehta stressed the importance of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Despite this, he pointed out, 'there are certain zones which remain exclusive to either of the three organs…and cannot be trenched upon by the others. The high plenary positions of Governors and President fall within that zone. While they are political positions, they are also representations of democratic will'. 'While the President is elected and governors are appointed by Council of Ministers [acting through President], direct elections are not the only form of democratic processes in a republican democracy. The positions of power, where appointments are made by elected representatives, are also legitimate centres of democratic faith,' Mehta said. On governors, he said, they 'are thus not to be treated as alien/foreigner in the federating units of the Union. Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre rather representatives of the entire nation in each and every federating unit. They represent national interest and national democratic will in the States as part of the larger Indian constitutional brotherhood.' Responding to the question of granting assent to bills, he said: 'The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature. Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, however, the assent itself is legislative in nature.' Mehta pointed out that 'this blended and unique nature of assent, clothes it with a constitutional character whereby no judicially manageable standards exist. Thus, despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel.' Mehta said that 'a wide-ranging judicial review of assent procedures, either post-assent or at a stage anterior to the grant of assent, would potentially destabilise the constitutional balance between organs of State. It would create an institutional hierarchy and upset the constitutional balance of powers between the three organs' and 'has the potential to convert the Indian Constitution, into one which postulates supremacy of Judiciary as a doctrinal principle'. This, he said, was against the 'basic structure of the Constitution' and 'against any justifiable reading of the Constitution as a whole'. Mehta underlined that 'judicial deference and restraint have come to define the high ideals of Indian judiciary, and the judicial branch does not hold keys or solutions for every conundrum that may arise in a democratic polity'. Saying that the Constitution framers, advisedly, left some questions outside the judicial realm, he added: 'This has been recognised as an inherent limitation of judicial procedures and judicial forums across the world….The power of mandamus thus, cannot be exercised over such functionaries owing to their constitutional status and inter-organ comity.' The law officer said that 'each organ of the State in the Constitution has certain core functions, one organ interfering with the core functions of another would breach the separation of powers which is a fundamental feature of Indian Constitution'. Saying that certain political questions may have only democratic remedies under the Constitution, Mehta said: 'In the zest of finding a solution to the problem presented before one organ, such organ must follow the essential feature of separation of powers in such core functions.' He further pointed out that 'when the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. On the other hand, when it designedly sought to keep the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. Since the text of Article 200 or 201 does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.' Mehta said that 'the exercise Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can override the constitutional provisions or run contrary to them. The Apex Court, even under Article 142, is bound by constitutional provisions and principles'. He added that 'the alleged failure, inaction, or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers.' The SG said it 'would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution establishes and would negate the rule of law. The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally sanctioned mechanisms such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the Court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head.'
