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
an hour ago
- Indian Express
With Trump's crackdown on LA protests, the deepening shadow of authoritarianism over the US
On June 8, President Donald Trump ordered roughly 4,000 members of the California National Guard to be deployed in the city of Los Angeles for a duration of 60 days. Under normal circumstances, their deployment would be within the authority of the governor of the state, Gavin Newsom. However, the President can, if conditions so warrant, federalise the National Guard. The conditions under which the President can undertake such an action are narrowly circumscribed. Specifically, an existing law outlines three conditions that could warrant such an action: If the United States has been invaded or faces the threat of an invasion, if it faces a rebellion, or if regular forces are incapable of maintaining law and order. Decades ago, the third condition had led to the federal deployment of the National Guard. In 1957, three years after the Supreme Court in the famous case Brown versus the Board of Education had ruled against segregation in public schools, the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had dragged his feet in allowing nine Black children to attend a public school in Little Rock. President Dwight Eisenhower, who was incensed with Faubus's unwillingness to implement the law, federalised the Arkansas National Guard to ensure that the students could attend the school safely. This episode, however, was a case when the federal government was convinced that local law enforcement authorities were either incapable or unwilling to guarantee the safety of the students. Furthermore, it involved an issue of implementing the civil rights of the students. On this occasion, Trump has chosen to deploy the National Guard against mostly peaceful protestors who were exercising their right of free speech which is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Furthermore, it is far from clear that the local law enforcement authorities were unable to cope with any possible disorder that stemmed from the protests. Several issues are at play here. The protests in Los Angeles, a mostly liberal city in the largely left-leaning state of California, started in the wake of a spate of raids and arrests that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were making across the city. These actions are part of President Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants across the country. The tactics have been harsh, unrelenting, and on occasion, have resulted in clashes with locals who believe that their communities are being unfairly targeted. What prompted Trump to call in the National Guard? To begin with, California, for the most part, is easily the most progressive state in the nation. Consequently, it is in Trump's political interest to take a particularly tough stance toward these demonstrators. In effect, he is throwing down the proverbial gauntlet and daring Newsom to stand up to him. Furthermore, despite the conciliatory efforts of Governor Newsom, in recent days the two have been at odds. Among other matters, Newsom has publicly threatened that California would stop sending federal taxes to Washington DC if Trump withheld federal funds that are owed to California. It is highly unlikely that Newsom would take this step. However, his willingness to demonstrate some spine has, no doubt, piqued Trump. This is also not the first time that Trump has sought to use the National Guard to quell demonstrations. In 2020, when there were widespread protests in Washington DC — another liberal city — Trump had asked the governors of several states to send in their National Guard troops to the nation's capital. These protests were part of a nationwide movement following the police killing of George Floyd in the city of Minneapolis. Some governors had complied with his demand but others had refused to do so, infuriating Trump. In the wake of Trump's decision to federalise the National Guard and order them to Los Angeles, Governor Newsom has upped the ante. On June 9, he sued the Trump administration on the grounds that the deployment of the National Guard violates California's sovereignty. How the court will decide is uncertain. It is of course possible that it will rule in favour of California as prima facie the deployment does not really meet the criteria spelled out in the current law. However, as this decision is awaited, the stationing of the National Guard in Los Angeles is likely to only worsen tensions across the city. The writer is a Senior Fellow and directs the Huntington Program on Strengthening US-India Relations at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
India's myopic view on tax policy hurts FDI. Fix it before it breaks the camel's back
For emerging markets like India, FDI holds the promise of technology transfer, job creation, and overall economic development. The Manmohan Singh government in 2008 relaxed FDI norms by allowing greater foreign investment in sectors such as telecom, defence, and insurance through the automatic route, which improved investor sentiment and resulted in an FDI surge. However inaction on urgent banking sector reforms eventually led to a dip in sentiment and inflows. Investor confidence and FDI inflows surged again in 2014 and 2019 on the back of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government's ease of doing business, but enthusiasm has petered out over the last few years. The court's rejection of AGR waiver requests leaves telecom operators with over Rs 80,000 crore in outstanding payments. Similarly, the application of dual taxation will now allow state governments to levy entertainment tax on DTH broadcasters (service tax is already charged by the Central Government as a part of GST). At a time when private investments are already at decadal lows in the domestic market, a myopic view on tax policy may be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. India's net foreign direct investment inflows fell from $10.58 billion in 2023 to $ 0.4 billion in 2024, the sharpest drop in two decades. This reflects global uncertainty, as well as deficiencies in the country's business climate. The Supreme Court's recent rulings dismissing the waiver of interest and penalty pending on the Adjusted Gross Revenue from telecom operators, and judicial sanction to dual taxation on Direct-to-Home services , may further dampen investor sentiment. Tax policies are an important determinant of sentiment, because investors seek stable and predictable tax regimes. In the AGR case, the Supreme Court's retrospective tax compliance requirements have generated significant financial repercussions for telecom companies, potentially even risking bankruptcy for certain operators. Similarly, the imposition of dual taxation and license fee demands on DTH broadcasting creates an added burden on service providers, challenging the industry's viability and potentially leading to higher costs for consumers. These decisions also throw light on the need to review the judiciary's role in economic regulation. Also read: Ease of Doing Business: If World Bank sees beyond Delhi & Mumbai, India will do better In search of tax certainty Despite economic liberalisation, India continues to struggle to develop a consistent tax policy approach for trade and commerce. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's decision to amend the Income Tax Act in 2012 and retrospectively apply it to indirect transfers is a prime example. Besides dampening investor sentiment, the decision also attracted a slew of lawsuits by companies such as the Cairn Group and Vodafone in international courts and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The NDA government promised reform in its 2014 manifesto, and a full seven years later, passed the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill 2021, which nullified the 2012 amendment. Tax reform, then, seems always to follow from sharp economic pains. It is time for more proactive thinking on tax policy, which can no longer be guided only by the limited objective of revenue maximisation or hawkish enforcement to meet steep internal targets. This approach does little to encourage innovation, domestic value generation, or investment, and there is much evidence on offer. The retrospective application of 28 per cent GST on online real-money games in 2024 has already eroded billions of rupees in market value, and generated uncertainty and ambiguity within a high-growth digital market segment. Also read: India's record net FDI plunge reveals a troubling trend—outward FDI beats investing at home A two-step approach to reform As per the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s Handbook on Tax Law Design and Drafting, the executive should primarily interpret tax laws. This is the case in countries like the United States, where the Internal Revenue Service issues detailed rules, regulations and procedures to interpret the legislation passed by the Congress. However, in the case of India, flawed policy modelling has led to growing judicial intervention in clarifying and settling tax controversies. While courts play a vital role in resolving disputes, they should exercise caution in intervening and correcting market failures in dynamic and competitive markets. Judges must recognise the unique characteristics of these industries and exercise restraint, ensuring their actions support rather than hinder progress. A measured judicial approach is necessary to foster a thriving environment that benefits both industry players and the wider public. Simultaneously, India needs a clear guidance for commercial tax policy, to sustain economic growth. The introduction of the Direct Tax Code is a step in the right direction. But the government should go further. The new wave of capital and technology intensive industries need a new tax compact; one that is pro-growth and sensitive to their needs. This can be achieved by encoding well-known tax principles as the touchstone for both rule-making and enforcement. A well-crafted charter for commercial taxation can lay the foundation for a fairer, more efficient system. Such a charter should ensure that taxation does not distort business decisions or market behaviour by grounding itself in the principle of neutrality – so that decisions are made on economic merits alone. It should prioritise clarity and simplicity, reducing the complexity of tax obligations and making compliance more straightforward. Certainty and stability are equally vital but often ignored. Finally, the charter must be designed to keep pace with modern economic realities, adapting to digital business models that sometimes operate on wafer thin margins but produce outsize economic impact. Samrridhi Kumar and Anugya Singh are analysts at Koan Advisory Group. Views are personal. This article is part of ThePrint-Koan Advisory series that analyses emerging policies, laws and regulations in India's technology sector. Read all the articles here. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
