Show-cause: Prof moves HC, PU panel reviewing matter
Chandigarh: A disciplinary matter involving a PU law department professor still remains under review by the varsity's standing committee, after a show-cause notice was issued in Jan and a subsequent legal challenge in Punjab and Haryana HC.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The HC had disposed of the writ petition in view of the fact that the matter was being reviewed by a PU standing committee.
The proceedings began with a show-cause notice issued to Prof Supinder Kaur by the department chairperson on Jan 16. The notice stated that during a meeting in the committee room on Jan 15, Kaur "allegedly exhibited unprofessional behaviour and used threatening and disrespectful language against the chairperson, in the presence of the faculty members of the JAAC, non-teaching staff and student research scholars.
" It further alleged that she "allegedly refused to carry out your duties as a member of the technical committee." The notice cited provisions of the PU calendar, categorising the conduct as serious misconduct.
In a written reply dated Jan 28, Kaur questioned the applicability of the cited rules and the authority of the chairperson to issue such a notice. She referred to the PU Act and requested documents supporting the allegations.
Kaur then filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana HC. During a hearing on March 24, in CWP-8100-2025, the university's counsel informed the court that "as per his instructions, the matter has been referred to Standing Committee to resolve the dispute." The court took note of this submission and did not issue further directions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
ADM Jabalpur: The top court's fall and redemption
Fifty years after the Emergency, the memory of that period continues to haunt the conscience of India's constitutional democracy. Central to that collective reckoning is the Supreme Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla case in 1976, famously dubbed the 'Habeas Corpus case'. Also Read: HC orders judicial inquiry into construction of 17 illegal buildings in Shil Daighar At a time when the judiciary was expected to act as the guardian of civil liberties, the apex court chose to become an instrument of the executive, handing down a verdict that effectively sanctioned state authoritarianism. The judgment is a cautionary tale of how legal formalism and deference to executive authority can gut the soul of a liberal constitutional democracy. Also Read: Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to alleged 'dunki' agent HT takes a look at the legal, political and moral dimensions of the case, the dissent that stood tall against the tide, and the decades-long journey of constitutional redemption that culminated in its formal overruling in 2017. The context On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a national Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbances. Civil liberties were curtailed, political opponents jailed, and press freedom muzzled. The government invoked Article 359(1), issuing a presidential order suspending the right of citizens to move courts for the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 -- rights guaranteeing equality, life, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest. Also Read: Chhota Shakeel aide discharged from 2022 extortion case due to lack of evidence Against this backdrop, several high courts granted relief to detainees under Article 226, questioning the legality of their arrests under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. The Union government challenged these orders, leading to the Supreme Court's decision in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla. The pivotal legal issue was whether a citizen could seek judicial remedy via habeas corpus (essentially challenge detention) when the enforcement of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) stood suspended. In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that no individual had the locus standi to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The majority judgment, delivered by then Chief Justice of India AN Ray and concurred with by justices MH Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati, held that the suspension of Article 21 rendered the right to life and personal liberty non-justiciable. Even if a detention was illegal, arbitrary or mala fide, the courts had no authority to intervene, stated the majority opinion, asserting that rights existed only insofar as the Constitution recognised and enforced them. This effectively meant that during the Emergency, the State could deprive a person of their liberty or even life without any legal recourse. The verdict was an endorsement of unchecked executive power. It subordinated the judiciary to the will of the government, silenced legal dissent, and undermined the foundational promise of the Constitution: That liberty is not at the mercy of the State. The dissent The lone dissent came from justice HR Khanna, who rejected the majority's formalism and asserted that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution but an inherent natural right. Drawing from natural law and common law traditions, justice Khanna argued that certain rights are so intrinsic to human dignity that they transcend constitutional text. His judgment famously stated, 'Even in the absence of Article 21, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.' Justice Khanna underscored that the Constitution did not create the right to life and liberty; it merely recognised it. As he eloquently put it: 'Rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness.' This means that the executive branch cannot misuse its power and claim protection simply because the President has issued a proclamation. Therefore, he held, even when fundamental rights are suspended by a presidential order, judges still have the authority to review the actions of the executive to ensure they are lawful and not arbitrary. His principled stand cost him the Chief Justiceship as he was superseded by justice Beg despite being senior. The ADM Jabalpur judgment sparked outrage among jurists, scholars, and civil society. It came to symbolise judicial abdication, a moment when the Supreme Court failed in its primary duty to act as a bulwark against executive excess. Though the Emergency was lifted in 1977 and the Janata Party came to power, the damage had been done. Yet, the spirit of justice Khanna's dissent lived on, influencing a more expansive and liberal interpretation of rights in the years to come. Reversal and redemption The judicial journey from ADM Jabalpur to KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) is one of moral and constitutional redemption. It began with Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court overturned the narrow reading of Article 21 established in AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras (1950) which held that each fundamental right operates independently and should therefore be interpreted in isolation. The Maneka Gandhi ruling declared that laws affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, creating a triadic relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 – as against the previous concept of fundamental rights existing in separate silos. Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated that natural justice is 'not a creation of the Constitution but inherent in human values.' In many ways, the Maneka Gandhi case was the jurisprudential response to ADM Jabalpur's moral collapse, reasserting the judiciary's role in preserving dignity and fairness. That trajectory culminated in the 2017 KS Puttaswamy verdict. In KS Puttaswamy, a nine-judge bench in the top court finally buried ADM Jabalpur. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud explicitly overruled the majority view in his father's judgment in ADM Jabalpur. He stated: 'The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. They constitute rights under natural law.' It was a rare and poignant moment of judicial introspection. In 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdown, the Supreme Court again revisited ADM Jabalpur. A bench headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, while ruling on police delays in filing chargesheets, emphasised that the right to liberty remains enforceable even in emergencies. The court noted that the 'retrograde steps' taken in ADM Jabalpur were immediately remedied by the 44th Amendment and formally overruled by Puttaswamy. The 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 responded to the ADM Jabalpur verdict by inserting a critical safeguard -- even during an Emergency, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. This was Parliament's way of ensuring that the excesses sanctioned by ADM Jabalpur would not be repeated. It codified what justice Khanna had asserted all along – that certain rights are non-negotiable. The story of ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla is not just about a flawed judgment but stands as a grim reminder of what happens when courts choose executive convenience over constitutional conscience. It is about the fragility of constitutional rights, the dangers of judicial timidity and the enduring value of dissent. It is a crucial narrative that reveals about a moment when the rule of law bent under pressure, and how that breach was slowly repaired through principled jurisprudence and legislative intervention. Justice Khanna's dissent, once sidelined, now occupies a place of honour in India's constitutional canon. It reminds us that in times of crisis, the judiciary must rise above expediency and remain faithful to the moral foundations of the Constitution.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
...HC reserves its order on petitions seeking stay on Batla House demolitions
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its order on petitions seeking a stay on the demolitions in the Batla House area. Justice Tejas Karia wrapped up proceedings after hearing the arguments of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the individual petitioners who sought interim relief and protection. HC was dealing with several petitioners, including affected residents Heena Parveen, Jinat Kausar, Rukhsana Begam, and Nihal Fatima. Appearing for them, advocates Anurag Saksena and Sonica Ghosh urged the court to intervene and argued that the DDA issued a generic notice when there is no clear demarcation of properties that fall in the particular Khasra number under scrutiny for alleged illegal constructions. The counsels maintained that not all properties in the Khasra are illegal and sought time from the court to produce the necessary documents. The petitioners submitted they purchased the property from a builder and were residents of the area since 1980-82. They are in the process of obtaining the documents, which are in Urdu and Farsi and require translation. Opposing the plea, counsel for the DDA maintained that the properties are illegal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The counsel argued that the DDA is taking action following directions from the Supreme Court and gave time to the residents to furnish documents, but they failed to do so. The agency added that the land is illegally occupied as the encroachers failed to show title documents. Last week, in separate proceedings, HC stayed the proposed demolition of 11 properties in the same area after individual residents challenged the notices issued by the DDA. The petitioners argued that nine properties were outside the Khasra identified by the DDA yet were being targeted, while two premises fell within the Khasra number but are protected under the PM Uday Scheme. It was also contended that before taking action, the DDA didn't hear them. On June 11, the matter relating to demolitions by DDA in the area had reached HC in the form of a PIL but the court refused to grant any relief to AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, saying that a general order of protection in a PIL of this sort was likely to jeopardise the case of individual litigants. The Supreme Court on May 7 ordered the DDA to demolish unauthorised structures in Khasra number 279, which is estimated to be around 2.8 bigha or 0.702 hectare along Muradi Road in Okhla village. |
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Ship mishap claim: Kerala HC directs registry to deposit money in bank
Kochi: High court on Monday directed the HC registry to deposit the amount of Rs 6 crore, covered by the demand draft provided by the owners of the cargo vessel MSC MANASA F, towards the claim raised by three cashew importing companies for losses suffered due to the capsize of MSC ELSA 3, in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a year. The bench of Justice M A Abdul Hakhim issued the order on petitions filed by five cashew importing companies seeking compensation for the loss of their cargo due to the sinking of the Liberian-flagged cargo vessel MSC ELSA 3 off Kerala coast on May 25. The petitioners had approached the HC with interim prayers to arrest MSC MANASA F, a sister vessel of the sunken ship, which was anchored at Vizhinjam, until the realisation of their claims. Accordingly, on June 12, the bench ordered the arrest of the vessel until the shipping company produced a demand draft for Rs 6 crore before the HC registrar general. On Monday, the owners of the vessel informed HC that the demand draft towards the petitioners' claim had been deposited with the registrar, and the high court registry confirmed the same. Additionally, the owners sought a directive to transfer the amount covered by the demand draft to an interest-bearing account. The court accepted the request and ordered accordingly, before adjourning the petitions. The petitioner companies, based in Kollam, stated in their pleas that they had purchased dried raw cashew nuts from a trading company in Dubai, which were shipped in containers bound for Tuticorin port. According to the petitioners, the consignments were expected to arrive at Tuticorin on May 24 aboard MSC ELSA 3. However, the Indian agent of the shipping company informed them via email on May 28 that the vessel had sunk on May 25 en route from Vizhinjam to Kochi, resulting in the total loss of cargo. This led the companies to file Admiralty suits seeking compensation.
