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
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC refuses immediate hearing as Tamil Nadu accuses Centre of withholding over Rs 2,150 crore in school funds
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has declined an urgent hearing request from the Tamil Nadu government regarding their plea against the central government. The state claims that Rs 2,151 crore in central education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme for 2024-2025 is being withheld by the Centre. The state government sought immediate intervention from the Supreme Court in this matter on Monday. The dispute centers around the allocation and disbursement of funds meant for education initiatives in Tamil Nadu under the federal education scheme. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan took note of the fact that the state government filed the petition in May alleging withholding of central funds for 2024 and this year also. "There is no urgency and it can be taken up after the 'partial working days' (the new name of summer vacation)," the bench said. In May, the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court against the Centre for allegedly withholding the funds. The DMK government's plea, filed against the Union Ministry of Education, invokes Article 131 of the Constitution which provides exclusive jurisdiction to the top court to hear pleas between the Centre and one or more states, or between one or more states. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo The state government alleged the Centre attempted to force the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the associated PM SHRI Schools Scheme which it strongly objected to, particularly the contentious three-language formula. The top court, therefore, was urged to declare that the NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme are not binding on the plaintiff state unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for their implementation within Tamil Nadu . The lawsuit has also sought a declaration that the action of the Centre to link Tamil Nadu's entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to the implementation of the NEP, 2020, and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme within the state are unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable . It has also urged the top court to declare the Centre's letters of February 23, 2024 and March 07, 2024 as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding on the state government. The plea sought a direction to the Centre to pay "Rs 2,291,30,24,769 (two thousand two hundred and ninety-one crore thirty lakhs twenty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine) within a time frame to be fixed by this court" along with a future interest of 6 per cent per annum on the "principal sum of Rs 2,151,59,61,000 (two thousand one hundred and fifty-one crore fifty nine lakh and sixty one thousand) from May 1, 2025 until realisation of the decree". The dispute stems from the non-release of central funds under the Scheme, a flagship centrally sponsored programme for school education aimed at universalising quality education. The Project Approval Board (PAB) of the Ministry of Education had approved a total outlay of Rs 3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu for FY 2024 25, of which the Union Government's committed 60 per cent share amounted to Rs 2,151.59 crore. The plea said despite this approval, no instalments have been disbursed by the Centre as yet. The Centre, it said, unilaterally linked the release of these funds to Tamil Nadu's full implementation of NEP 2020 and the signing of an MoU for the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, conditions which were neither part of the original Samagra Shiksha Scheme nor agreed upon by the state. The reason for such non-disbursement is that the defendant has linked the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds with the implementation of national education policy and NEP exemplary PM SHRI Schools' Scheme despite the fact that these policy/scheme are separate schemes, it said. Referring to the impact of non-release of Samagra Shiksha funds, the plea said paying salaries was crucial in maintaining competent and motivated teachers and supporting staff. It directly impacts the quality of education provided to students and contributes to overall societal development by nurturing the next generation with the skills and knowledge needed for success, it added. PTI Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Phone-tapping case: Ex-SIB chief appears before police for questioning
Hyderabad, Former Special Intelligence Bureau chief of Telangana, T Prabhakar Rao, the prime accused in the alleged phone-tapping case on Monday appeared before the police for questioning. Prabhakar Rao, who earlier cited ill health and was believed to be in the United States, landed in Hyderabad on Sunday night. The Supreme Court on May 29 granted interim protection from coercive action to Prabhakar Rao and directed him to appear before the investigating officer. Rao had moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Telangana High Court, which dismissed his anticipatory bail plea. Earlier, a Red Corner Notice was issued against him and his passport was revoked. On May 20, a Hyderabad court issued a proclamation order against Rao in the phone-tapping case. According to the order, Rao may be declared a "proclaimed offender" if he does not appear before the court by June 20. Rao, who was 'absconding' in the case, has been accused of forming a "Special Operations Team" under a suspended DSP within the SIB for carrying out certain specific tasks related to political surveillance to benefit the then ruling political party and its leaders. The suspended DSP of the SIB was among the four police officials arrested by the Hyderabad police since March 2024 for allegedly erasing intelligence information from various electronic gadgets as well as for phone-tapping during the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi regime in Telangana. They were subsequently granted bail. The accused are part of a "conspiracy", in which they allegedly misused the SIB's resources for political purposes by putting citizens from different walks of life under surveillance. Those named as accused in the case, along with others, had allegedly developed profiles of several people in an unauthorised manner and were accused of monitoring them clandestinely and illegally in the SIB and using them in a partisan manner to favour a political party at the behest of some people. They were also involved in a conspiracy to destroy records to cause disappearance of evidence of their crime, police had said.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government seeking an urgent hearing in its suit against the Union government for allegedly withholding over ₹2,000 crore in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). The Tamil Nadu government had described the Centre's move as 'coercive tactics' to force the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. 'For how long has this fund not been given? What is the urgency now?' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked senior advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the matter on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, seeking an expedited listing. As Wilson flagged the constitutional right to free and compulsory education of nearly 48 lakh students in the state being adversely impacted due to the withholding of the fund, the bench remained unconvinced and declined the request, saying: 'The plea is rejected.' The brief exchange took place during the Supreme Court's ongoing summer recess, now designated as a period of 'partial court working days' where only two to three benches sit and only matters of pressing urgency are usually considered, in addition to some old cases where both sides have given their consent to argue during the break. The regular functioning of the top court will resume on July 14. Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu's suit accuses the Centre of linking its annual share under the SSS to the implementation of the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme -- a condition the state calls 'unconstitutional, arbitrary and coercive.' According to the suit, the Project Approval Board had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu under SSS for the financial year 2024–25, of which ₹2,151.59 crore was to be the Centre's 60% share. The state claims this amount was not released solely because of its principled opposition to NEP 2020. Tamil Nadu, ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been a vocal critic of the NEP, particularly its three-language formula, which the state believes undermines its two-language policy rooted in Tamil linguistic pride and regional identity. 'The Union Government seeks to coerce the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,' the suit submitted, while asserting that SSS is a standalone scheme that should not be tied to compliance with any other policy. The suit further alleged that the withholding of funds 'cripples the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,' directly impacting 43.9 lakh students, 2.2 lakh teachers, and over 32,000 school staff in the state. The state's legal team has argued that the Centre's move violates the spirit of cooperative federalism and amounts to an 'usurpation' of the state's constitutional powers to legislate on education, which falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Tamil Nadu has also urged the Supreme Court to declare that the implementation of NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, which mandates full compliance with NEP, is not binding on the state. It has sought a direction to the Centre to immediately release ₹2,291 crore (including interest), claiming the delay is 'not only illegal but also violative of constitutional morality.' While the plea for an urgent hearing has now been declined, the main suit continues to be listed for regular hearing. The standoff comes amid a broader constitutional tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent, and the matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.
