HC raises concerns over delay in appointing permanent VC of Utkal varsity
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The post has remained vacant since Nov 24, 2024, following the end of the previous VC's term. On May 27, 2025, the chancellor appointed Jagneshwar Dandapat, a senior professor at the university's biotechnology department, as the in-charge VC.
However, a PIL filed by high court lawyer and Utkal University alumnus Prabir Kumar Das challenged the appointment, alleging a violation of the Odisha Universities Act, 1989.
The petition contended that the notification did not comply with the provisions of Section 6(10) of the Act which outlines the procedure for appointing an acting VC.
Taking note of the issue, a division bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman, observed on July 8 that the recent amendment to the Act, notified on April 17, 2025, allows the chancellor, in consultation with the state govt, to appoint any sitting VC of a public university in Odisha as a stopgap arrangement, with a maximum term of one year.
The state govt informed the court that following a Supreme Court directive, the process for appointing permanent VCs across universities has already begun and will be completed shortly.
While appreciating the state's response, the court stressed that 'the provisions of the law must be respected and followed in letter and spirit'. Advocate general Pitambar Acharya assured the bench that he would personally look into the matter and take corrective measures if any violation is found. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on July 23, directing the state to take 'appropriate steps' by then.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
27 minutes ago
- Hans India
Uttam tears into BRS, says rank irregularities at all levels in KLIP
Hyderabad: State Irrigation Minster N Uttam Kumar Reddy on Monday disclosed findings of the Judicial Commission on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, directly blaming former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao for bypassing rules, ignoring expert warnings, and plunging the State into Rs 84,000 crore of high-interest debt. In a powerpoint presentation after the cabinet meeting, Uttam said the Commission's 660-page report, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, exposed how Telangana's most expensive project became an engineering and financial disaster due to unilateral and illegal decisions made during the BRS regime. 'We had promised the people that a judicial inquiry would be ordered into the Medigadda barrage collapse. After coming to power, we formed a Commission headed by Justice Ghose, and now that report has been submitted,' Uttam said. 'It clearly says KCR acted not as Chief Minister but as an administrative head issuing direct orders that went against institutional processes.' Quoting from the report, Minister Uttam said: 'The Commission has held that there is rank irregularity from the stage of conceptualisation of the project till the administrative approvals on March 1, 2016. These decisions were not those of the government, but of individuals.' He said the decision to shift the barrage from Tummidihatti to Medigadda was made solely by KCR, under the false pretext of water unavailability. 'The report says the reason for abandoning Tummidihatti does not appear sincere or honest,' Uttam added. The Minister reminded that even Union Minister Uma Bharti had confirmed water availability at Tummidihatti and the Central Water Commission (CWC) had approved the hydrology of the Pranahita-Chevella project in October 2014. 'But KCR's government wrote to the Centre saying there was no water, and that misrepresentation was found to be malicious by the Commission,' Uttam said. Minister Uttam revealed that an expert committee constituted by KCR's own government via G.O. Rt. No. 28 in January 2015 had recommended that building a barrage at Medigadda was unviable and not economical. 'They clearly said the barrage should be built at Vemanapally instead. That report was deliberately kept aside,' he said. 'The Commission observes that the suppression of this report was not accidental. It was done with intent to allow the CM and Irrigation Minister to go ahead with Medigadda against all expert advice,' he noted. Uttam Kumar Reddy laid out the timeline: 'The Medigadda barrage agreement was signed in 2016. The Kaleshwaram project was inaugurated in 2019. By October 21, 2023, Pillar 20 of Medigadda's Block-7 collapsed due to structural failure.' He said the Commission endorsed the NDSA's findings which cited serious planning and design flaws. 'The barrage was built on a permeable foundation, unsuitable for a storage structure. A cavity filled with soil was found instead of sand. Only 7,498 concrete samples were tested instead of the 37,000+ required,' he quoted from the report.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Kangana Ranaut slams Rahul Gandhi's ‘anti-India mindset' after SC pulls him up for remarks on Army
Following the Supreme Court's strong remarks against Rahul Gandhi over his comments against the Indian armed forces after the India-China border clashes, Bharatiya Janata Party MP Kangana Ranaut accused the Congress MP of having an "anti-India mindset" and consistently aligning with the narratives of enemy nations. Rahul Gandhi's comments date back to December 16, 2022, during the Congress's 'Bharat Jodo Yatra'.(PTI) "Rahul Gandhi always speaks against India, whether on the economy or the defence forces. He speaks in support of enemy nations. He has an anti-India mindset," Kangana Ranaut said. "So, this is a welcome move by the Supreme Court; they pulled him up. In the future, others should be mindful that they do not hurt India's honour, integrity, and morale," Ranaut said. Ranaut added that the judiciary's firm stand should serve as a warning. "It's a welcome move that they pulled him up. In the time to come, others should be mindful that they do not hurt India's honour, integrity and morale," he added. Kangana's sharp attack came a day after the Supreme Court questioned Rahul Gandhi's controversial statements about the Indian Army and Chinese aggression made during his 2022 'Bharat Jodo Yatra'. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih expressed concern over the credibility of his claim that China had occupied 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory, stating that such remarks were unbecoming of a "true Indian". During a hearing, the top court pulled no punches in its criticism. "How do you get to know that 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory was occupied by China? What is the credible material? If you are a true indian, you would not say this when there is a conflict across borders. Can you say all this?" Justice Dutta said. The bench further questioned the choice of platform for such statements, asking why Gandhi hadn't raised these concerns in Parliament instead of on social media. "Whatever you have to say, why don't you say it in the Parliament? Why do you have to say this in the social media posts?" asked Justice Datta. Rahul Gandhi's comments Gandhi's comments date back to December 16, 2022, during a press interaction while leading the Congress's 'Bharat Jodo Yatra'. "People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh," Gandhi said. "But the Indian press doesn't ask them a question about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know," he added.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Pollution boards can impose damages
Pollution control boards are constitutionally empowered to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages under the Water and Air Acts for actual or potential harm to the environment — not merely punitive penalties — the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling that redefines the powers of environmental regulators. SC: Pollution boards can impose damages Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental governance, a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declared that such powers are not only legally valid under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, but are also a 'necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.' While setting aside a 2012 ruling of the Delhi high court that stripped pollution control boards of their authority to seek environmental damages, the court underscored that remediation and prevention, not just punishment, must lie at the heart of environmental regulation in India. 'This order is a very good development. In fact, this was a concern with Air and Water acts because earlier they were excessively focused on punitive action which led to criminalisation. That was not a good tool to drive change. Civil penalties are very important tools to drive action but they were either imposed by NGT or by Supreme Court,' said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, drew a critical distinction between punitive penalties imposed after finding legal violations, and restitutionary damages, which may be imposed even ex-ante -- before actual environmental harm occurs. In doing so, the court reinforced the preventive role of regulatory authorities, aligning Indian law with global environmental principles such as 'polluter pays' and precautionary action. 'Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure…These powers are incidental and ancillary to their statutory empowerment and are critical to preventing environmental degradation,' it held. Importantly, the court clarified that such damages are not punitive fines and therefore do not require the procedural rigour mandated for criminal prosecution. Instead, they serve as compensatory tools aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems or mitigating potential environmental harm. The judgment draws from the Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens' fundamental duty to safeguard natural resources). The bench reasoned that in the face of climate change and rising pollution, restoration of the environment is a core constitutional obligation and not just a statutory function. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights…But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow,' it noted. The court called environmental protection 'perhaps the most significant duty' imposed under Article 51A, and asserted that regulators must be allowed to act with foresight and autonomy. It emphasised the importance of institutional integrity, independence from government and industrial control and domain expertise within the pollution control boards. The judgment further consolidated the 'polluter pays' principle into Indian jurisprudence, observing that it applies in three scenarios -- when regulatory thresholds are breached causing environmental damage; when no thresholds are breached, yet damage occurs; and when there is a likelihood or risk of environmental damage, even if no harm has occurred yet. In all three instances, the court held, pollution control boards are duty-bound to act, not merely after the fact, but proactively. 'Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage. A restrictive interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A would encumber the boards' ability to discharge their duty.' 'This is very good because precautionary action gives you space to drive implementing agencies to enable implementation. More importantly, the polluter pays principle helps in mobilizing additional resources to meet the cost of implementation. For example in Delhi, trucks pay environmental compensation charge, big diesel cars also pay env compensation and there is a cess on diesel. These helped create dedicated funds meant for meeting pollution control measures,' Roychowdhury said. Stressing the importance of democratic participation in environmental governance, the court said future rules must include provisions enabling citizen complaints and community involvement in regulatory oversight. It added that pollution control boards, being the first line of defence, must be accessible, transparent, and accountable. While expanding the powers of regulators, the court emphasised that restitutionary powers be exercised with transparency, fairness, and procedural certainty, and be guided by subordinate legislation in the form of formal rules and regulations. These rules, the court said, must spell out methods for assessing environmental damage, criteria for calculating compensation, natural justice safeguards for affected parties, and mechanisms to ensure public participation in the complaint and enforcement process. The court took note of existing guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in December 2022, pursuant to National Green Tribunal directions, but insisted they must now be codified as binding rules to lend them legal legitimacy and enforceability. 'Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished or whether the situation demands immediate restoration-- or both. What matters is that their decision is guided by principle, not arbitrariness,' it said.
