HC orders status quo on V-Cs' appointment till June 6
The Kerala High Court has extended its previous order directing that status quo be maintained with respect to Vice-Chancellors of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology and the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University until June 6.
The interim order came on the appeals filed by the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellors, challenging the judgment of the single Bench, which had held that the appointment as V-Cs of Ciza Thomas (Digital University) and K. Sivaprasad (Technological University) was not in accordance with law, owing to the absence of a recommendation from the State.
In his appeal, the Chancellor said the Supreme Court had recognised the independent authority of the Chancellor in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. He further contended that the requirement of the State government's recommendation under the university Acts was inconsistent with UGC Regulations, 2018. He further contended that the six-month tenure limit applied only under the university Acts, and that the incumbents could continue until regular appointments are made.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
a day ago
- News18
Widow Can't Be Thrown Out Of Matrimonial Home By In-Laws: Kerala High Court
Last Updated: A 41-year-old woman approached the courts seeking protection from harassment and forceful eviction from the shared household after her husband's demise in 2009 The Kerala High Court recently upheld a widow's right to reside in her matrimonial home, rejecting objections raised by her in-laws, who had attempted to evict her. The bench of Justice MB Snehalatha dismissed a revision petition filed by the relatives of the deceased husband of a 41-year-old woman who had approached the courts seeking protection from harassment and forceful eviction from the shared household after her husband's demise in 2009. The high court affirmed the decision of the sessions court in Palakkad, which had granted protection and residence orders in the woman's favour after overturning the findings of the judicial magistrate, who had initially dismissed her plea. The woman alleged that following her husband's death, her in-laws began to harass her and obstruct her and her children's entry into the family home. She approached the court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the magistrate's court held that she had no existing 'domestic relationship" with her in-laws and therefore wasn't entitled to relief under the Act. The sessions court took a different view and granted her the relief sought. The in-laws challenged this before the high court, arguing that the woman owned separate property and had been living at her parental home, thus disqualifying her as an 'aggrieved person" under the Act. Rejecting these arguments, the high court noted that the woman, being the wife of the deceased and having resided in the shared household, fell squarely within the definitions under Sections 2(a), 2(f), and 2(s) of the DV Act. The court reiterated that the right to reside in the shared household does not depend on ownership or continuous residence at the time of the dispute. Quoting extensively from the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, the judgment emphasised that women's right to shelter and security within a domestic setting is fundamental and cannot be undermined merely because they possess alternate accommodation or temporarily reside elsewhere. 'This right is crucial for a woman's safety and dignity, ensuring that she is not forcibly removed or homeless due to domestic abuse," the court observed, while also stressing that the DV Act should be interpreted liberally in favour of victims, keeping its beneficial and protective purpose in mind. Finding no merit in the arguments of the in-laws, the high court refused to interfere with the sessions court order. The revision petition was, accordingly, dismissed. First Published: June 04, 2025, 16:26 IST
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Family of youngster missing for almost a year ago moves Kerala HC for CBI probe
The family of Adam Jo Antony, a youngster from Palluruthy who went missing hardly a fortnight before his 20th birthday, has moved the Kerala High Court demanding a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into his mysterious disappearance after the Kerala Police failed to make a breakthrough in the case almost a year after. Jo had gone for his routine early morning cycling on July 28, 2024. CCTV footage from his immediate neighbourhood showed Jo on the road at 3.19 a.m. on the day he went missing. Thereafter, he was untraceable. He had neither taken his wallet nor his mobile phone, which made tracking him by tower location impossible. 'Our demand for a CBI probe is not out of our dissatisfaction over the police probe. They are indeed investigating and keeping us informed. But it is now 312 days since he went missing, and there is no hint of where he is or what happened to him,' said K.J. Antony, Jo's father. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court, urging the police to produce his son in November 2024. The latest hearing was held on Tuesday (June 03, 2025). After the initial probe by the local police made little headway, District Police Chief (Kochi City) Putta Vimaladitya formed a Special Investigation Team headed by the Mattancherry Assistant Commissioner in September 2024. Later, another team led by the Deputy Commissioner was put in charge of the probe following the habeas corpus petition. The police have been submitting fortnightly reports to the court since then. The police have also been coordinating with their counterparts in other States like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Delhi, and even Himachal Pradesh. Police teams going to other States to investigate other cases are also being asked to take up this missing case with the local police there. Besides, the police have been to places within and outside Kerala that Jo had visited before he went missing. Spots where he could have likely abandoned his cycle or sold it have also been covered. The police are also in touch with Malayali associations in other States. The possibility of the youngster working somewhere incognito and the identity of victims involved in accidents or mishaps is also looked into. The incident has taken a heavy toll on the youngster's family, not the least on his 14-year-old younger sibling.
Scroll.in
2 days ago
- Scroll.in
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.
