SC lists T.N. plea to transfer V-C case from Madras HC in July
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear in July a plea by the State of Tamil Nadu to transfer a writ petition challenging statutes related to the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the State.
The transfer petition filed by the State came up before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta. The court scheduled the case next on July 29.
The State was represented by senior advocates AM Singhvi and P. Wilson. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with Dhamma Seshadri Naidu appeared for the University Grants Commission. They urged the Bench to post the case after the ongoing summer vacations in the court.
Mr. Wilson said the transfer plea dealt with an issue involving principles of natural justice, and such matters are usually prioritised for hearing during the vacations.
The Madras High Court had on May 21 stayed the operation of a series of amending laws which shifted the power of appointment of Vice Chancellors in State-run universities from the Governor to the Tamil Nadu government.
A Vacation Bench of the High Court had granted the interim stay based on a plea by advocate K. Venkatachalapathy, who had challenged the legality of the amendments.
The advocate had primarily challenged the State laws on the ground that they were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court refuses to reduce sentence of advocate who abused woman magistrate in 2015
The Supreme Court Tuesday decided not to interfere with a Delhi High Court order which refused to reduce the sentence awarded to an advocate for outraging the modesty of a woman judicial officer in 2015, and granted him two weeks to surrender. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan recorded that it is 'not inclined to interfere with the orders' passed by the Delhi High Court against advocate Sanjay Rathore and dismissed his plea. In October 2015, the complainant judicial officer was serving as a metropolitan magistrate in the Karkardooma court when Rathore, enraged by an adjournment in his matter in his absence, verbally abused the officer, including using gendered abusive language. An FIR was subsequently lodged at the Farsh Bazar police station. Rathore was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment under Indian Penal Code Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman), three months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). It was directed that the sentences should run consecutively, thereby resulting in a total sentence of two years. The Delhi High Court, while refusing to reduce the sentence, however, modified it so that the sentences could run concurrently instead of consecutively. As a result, Rathore was sentenced to a total of one year and six months in prison. The high court, in its order of May 26, emphasised that acts threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through 'gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself, and must be met with firm accountability'. While refusing Rathore any relief, it further recorded in its order, 'The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, in this court's opinion, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity.'
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC grants bail to Uttarakhand man jailed for interfaith marriage, says ‘state can't object…they married as per wishes of parents'
Granting bail to a man booked under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, the Supreme Court last month held that the state cannot have any objection to the man's interfaith marriage as the couple married 'as per the wishes to their respective parents'. The Supreme Court relief by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, in an order on May 19, comes after the man, Aman Siddiqui, spent nearly six months in jail, for consensually marrying a Hindu woman in a wedding voluntarily arranged by the families and consented to by the parties involved. Siddiqui's counsel had told the apex court that 'the families voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the appellant with the lady. However, soon after the marriage certain persons and certain organizations seemed to have objected to the marriage'. This led to an FIR being lodged at Rudrapur police station in Uttarakhand on December 12, 2024, against Siddiqui, two days after his wedding on December 10. Siddiqui's parents were also booked, but they were later granted anticipatory bail. Siddiqui's counsel also told the Supreme Court bench that if granted bail, Siddiqui and his wife would reside separately from their families and 'continue to live peacefully without any hindrance'. Even as the state opposed the bail plea, the bench recorded in its order, 'We observe that the respondent – State cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes to their respective parents and families. In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted…'. A day after his wedding was conducted in accordance with Hindu rituals, Siddiqui was made to sign an undertaking by his wife's cousin brothers, assuring that he would not cause 'any kind of physical and mental harm' to her and that he would not force 'in any manner either physically and mentally to convert her to other religion'. The undertaking further stated that his wife would be 'independent to practice Hindu Religion' and 'free to follow all the Hindu Tradition with full freedom' and that Siddiqui would not interfere in her religious faith. The Uttarakhand High Court had rejected Siddiqui's bail plea on February 28. Before the high court, Siddiqui had submitted that his mother was a practising Hindu married to a Muslim man and had not converted. He further said that he too followed his mother's religion, including his parents performing a thread ceremony for him. The high court was also told that Siddiqui's father had separated from his joint family 'so that the applicant's (Siddiqui's) mother could comfortably follow her customs and rituals of Kumaoni Hindu family'. Meanwhile, the state had alleged that Siddiqui had suppressed the religion of his father. The high court had ultimately refused to grant bail.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Quota Within Quota Upheld To Benefit Most Marginalised: CJI Gavai At Oxford Union
Last Updated: CJI Gavai stated that sub-categorisation within quotas is essential for justice to reach the most marginalised, emphasizing the Constitution's role in addressing caste and poverty. Amid the intensifying debate over caste census and reservation policies, Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has said sub-categorisation within quotas is not an 'attack" on the policy of reservation, but a necessary refinement to ensure justice reaches the most marginalised. Addressing a gathering at Oxford Union in London, CJI Gavai said, 'The sub-classification within Scheduled Castes does not question the relevance or success of reservations. It seeks to ensure that those most historically deprived — even within these communities — are not left behind." CJI Gavai emphasised the role of the Indian Constitution as a 'social document" that confronts injustice head-on. 'The Constitution does not avert its gaze from the brutal truths of caste, poverty, exclusion, and injustice. It does not pretend that all are equal in a land scarred by deep inequality," he stated. 'Instead, it dares to intervene, to rewrite the script, to recalibrate power, and to restore dignity," he added. States Empowered To Sub-Classify SCs To Grant Quota To More BCs Within Reserved Category: SC Last year, the Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes, which form a socially heterogeneous class, for granting reservation for the uplift of castes that are socially and educationally more backward. 'The State in exercise of its power under Articles 15 (non-discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution is free to identify the different degrees of social backwardness and provide special provisions (such as reservation) to achieve the specific degree of harm identified," held the CJI in his 140-page judgement. First Published: June 11, 2025, 13:43 IST
