SC upholds TISS suspension of research scholar, relaxes term
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
(TISS) suspending
Dalit PhD scholar
Ramadas K S for his alleged misconduct and anti-national activities, but relaxed it to the period already undergone.
A TISS empowered committee on April 17, 2024, found Ramadas in breach of the honour code, rules and regulation of the institute and suspended him for two years and debarred his entry across all its campuses. A SC bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan reduced the period of suspension from two years to the period undergone till Friday.
The bench noted the submissions of advocate Rajeev Kumar Panday, appearing for TISS, and perused the documents which prompted the committee to suspend the scholar for two years.
The bench, which did not set aside the suspension order, took note of the fact that Ramadas, represented by senior advocate S Muralidhar, was doing his PhD from the institute and should be allowed to conclude it.
Panday referred to the records and alleged misconduct of Ramadas to argue that the Bombay high court was correct in not interfering with the suspension. The HC on March 12 dismissed Ramadas's plea challenging his suspension by TISS following which he moved the apex court.
Ramadas was suspended for his participation in a demonstration at Delhi's Jantar Mantar and for organising the screening of a documentary about the Ayodhya dispute. TISS alleged he broke its rules by participating in "politically motivated protests" despite being supported by central govt-funded scholarships for scheduled caste students.
"In the …facts and circumstances, having ourselves considered the material on record, we do not find that the impugned committee report suspending the petitioner for two years, suffers from any perversity or illegality. The impugned report and consequent action of suspension are based on material available on record and it is proportionate. We find that this is not a fit case to interfere. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed," the HC had said.
Ramadas first enrolled at TISS in 2015, for a Master's degree in Media and Cultural Studies, and was also awarded a fellowship by the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. In 2017, he enrolled in the integrated MPhil and PhD programme in Development Studies, but deferred admission for a year. He successfully finished his MPhil degree in 2021. On Feb 8, 2023, he was awarded a national fellowship for scheduled caste students on the basis of his performance in the UGC-NET exam. agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
a few seconds ago
- New Indian Express
SC: Sitting on bills will leave elected govt at governor's whims
NEW DELHI: On the second day of the hearing in the Presidential reference case on Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that in case a governor has the power to permanently withhold assent to the Bills passed by the State legislature, the situation might arise that would leave the elected State government at the whims and fancies of an unelected governor. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over appeals. The government elected with the majority will be at the whims and fancies of governor,' observed Chief Justice B R Gavai, leading the five-judge Constitution bench. The top court passed the remark after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution can withhold assent to a Bill, making it 'fall through' with no option to send it back to the legislature. The Court opined that the governor will then have ample powers to sit over Bills and withhold them for time immemorial. Mehta, however, replied that everyone derives power from the Constitution. The Union government argued in favour of discretionary powers assigned to the governor and said setting timelines for considering Bills could lead to a reduction in the constitutional power of the post. 'The governor is not a postman. He represents the Union of India (Centre). He is appointed by the president, who is, in turn, elected by the nation by way of an indirect election. The governor's office will be reduced to a postman if he cannot use his discretion to withhold Bills,' said the SG.
New Indian Express
a few seconds ago
- New Indian Express
Nation needs an impartial judge like Reddy: Kharge
NEW DELHI: Ahead of his filing nomination for the Vice Presidential elections on Thursday, Leaders of several opposition parties felicitated their joint V-P candidate B Sudershan Reddy in the central hall of old Parliament on Wednesday. Introducing Reddy, a retired Supreme Court judge, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said the opposition parties decided to field someone who has been dedicated to constitutional principles and Reddy is one such person. Kharge described Reddy as a 'towering figure' in Indian jurisprudence and said he is renowned for his unwavering commitment to justice. He said at a time when the integrity of our democratic institutions is facing unprecedented challenges, Reddy's nomination stands as a firm commitment to restoring fairness, impartiality, and dignity to the functioning of the Rajya Sabha. The Congress chief said in the last 11 years, the BJP government has discriminated against the Opposition. 'This vice presidential election is not merely a contest for an office; it is an ideological battle for the soul of our nation. While the ruling party has chosen the ideology of RSS, we uphold the Constitution and its values as our guiding light. 'B Sudershan Reddy embodies the timeless values of justice, equality, and inclusivity that fuelled India's freedom movement and form the bedrock of our Constitution,' he said.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to order closure of slaughter houses for nine days coinciding with the Jain religious festival of Paryushan Parv, saying there was no such legal mandate. No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC 'You are seeking Mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days,' the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne told the Jain petitioners who sought a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses during the festival. A mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or body to perform a specific legal duty. The Paryushan Parv commenced on Wednesday. The court had earlier directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider the Jain community's representation after it permitted only a one-day closure of slaughter houses during the festival. Pursuant to the court's directions, the BMC issued an order on August 14 extending the closure to two days—August 24 and August 27, the latter coinciding with Ganesh Chaturthi. Dissatisfied, the petitioners returned to court insisting on a full nine-day ban coinciding with the festival. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud cited the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close slaughter houses during the festival. Mumbai has a larger Jain population than Ahmedabad, which the BMC had failed to account for, Chandrachud argued. The plea did not cover fish or seafood and a restriction on slaughter houses would not violate fundamental rights, he said. Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, also for the petitioners, maintained that the BMC had disproportionately factored in the interests of the non-vegetarian population, despite a vegetarian majority in Mumbai. He even referred to Emperor Akbar's decree prohibiting slaughter during Paryushan, remarking that it was harder to secure a similar order from the civic body. The court, however, said that unlike in Ahmedabad, no municipal decision had been made here warranting judicial support. 'You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction,' the court said. The judges advised the petitioners to amend their plea if they wished to challenge the BMC's decision for being arbitrary or inadequately reasoned. The matter was adjourned for two weeks, with notice issued to the BMC.
