TN governor refers Kalaignar University bill, another to President
CHENNAI: Amid an ongoing legal dispute between Tamil Nadu govt and the Raj Bhavan, governor RN Ravi has referred to President
Droupadi Murmu
two bills, including one to establish Kalaignar University and another to amend the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act to empower govt to appoint and remove the vice-chancellor of the sports varsity.
These were among the 18 bills passed by the state legislature during the Budget session that concluded in April. Ravi gave assent to 16 of these bills following a Supreme Court order that set deadlines for such actions. "The governor has informed state govt about sending the two pending bills to the president," said a source. The governor is still sitting on two bills passed last year, one on fiscal responsibilities and the other on cooperative societies.
DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson accused the governor of defying the top court's order and the advice of the chief minister and the council of ministers and called for him to be sacked. "This action poses a serious threat to parliamentary democracy. The governor displays continuous blatant disregard for the Constitution and the highest constitutional court."
You Can Also Check:
Chennai AQI
|
Weather in Chennai
|
Bank Holidays in Chennai
|
Public Holidays in Chennai
DMK govt's plan to establish Kalaignar University in Kumbakonam, named after late CM M Karunanidhi, involves bifurcating Bharathidasan University.
The new university would serve four districts: Ariyalur, Nagapattinam, Thanjavur and Tiruvarur.
Higher education minister Govi Chezhiaan said Kalaignar University was envisioned to fulfil the demand for higher education from diverse sections, including from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to increase gross enrolment ratio.
The bill to amend the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act, introduced by deputy chief minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, also seeks to include the finance secretary as ex-officio member of the university syndicate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Row over BJP ex-spokesperson's nomination as Bombay HC judge reaches Parliament. Who is Aarti Sathe
A day after the collegium's decision, Trinalmool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale posted on X: 'Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP.' On 28 July, the Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of Aarti Arun Sathe, once a Maharashtra BJP spokesperson, as a high court judge, which sparked a row as the Opposition raised concerns over whether she would be impartial as a judge. Mumbai: The controversial nomination of an advocate for judgeship at the Bombay High Court has now reached Parliament, with Congress MP Hibi Eden moving an adjournment motion to discuss the matter in the Lok Sabha. Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of lawyer Aarti Sathe for elevation as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Just curious because there's an Adv Aarti Sathe who has been a spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP. Legal fraternity – same person or just similar names? — Saket Gokhale MP (@SaketGokhale) July 29, 2025 Earlier this week, others in the Opposition in Maharashtra began voicing their concerns. Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MLA Rohit Pawar wrote on X: 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy. The judge is a highly responsible position which should be impartial. When someone is appointed as judge from the ruling party, it raises a serious question mark on neutral position and also democratic process…' The Bharatiya Janata Party, however, clarified that the allegations are unfounded, and that her appointment is based on merit. Keshav Upadhye, chief spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP, said she had resigned from the party a year and half ago. 'She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticising her recommendation, which was made as per the decision of the judges' Collegium,' he posted on X. After resigning from the BJP, Aarti Sathe was recommended as a judge of the High Court after one and a half years. She now has no connection with the BJP. The Congress party and Rohit Pawar are criticizing her recommendation , which was made as per the decision of the judges'… — Keshav Upadhye (@keshavupadhye) August 5, 2025 Congress's state unit president Harshwardhan Sapkal also questioned Sathe's nomination. 'Democracy and the Constitution have been systematically sidelined in the country since 2014,' he said. 'All autonomous institutions are operating under government directives, even the Election Commission of India. But the most serious and worrying development is within the judiciary itself.' ThePrint attempted to reach Sathe via call, but she declined to comment on the matter. Also Read: Come to Maharashtra & speak—3 women MPs hold Nishikant Dubey to task over 'patak ke marenge' remark Who is Aarti Sathe? Sathe was affiliated with BJP Mumbai, and was appointed as a spokesperson in 2023. She was previously made a panelist for media interactions in 2020. She was also the head of the party's Legal cell. However, she had resigned from the position on 6 January, 2024, and also from the party's primary membership that year. 'I wish to be relieved from the responsibility as the head-legal cell BJP Mumbai for personal and professional reasons,' she had written in a letter addressed to Mumbai BJP chief Ashish Shelar, a copy of which is with ThePrint. Sathe has been a lawyer for the last 20 years, and has mainly dealt with matters linked to direct and indirect taxes, along with issues related to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) before the Bombay High Court. As party spokesperson, she often appeared in media debates on issues related to Mumbai. In debates on television news channels, she regularly spoke about the alleged mismanagement in the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation), the condition of dilapidated buildings in the city, or the condition of roads. Back in 2016, in a conversation with Mirror Now, she had defended demonetisation, saying that it would help clean up the corruption in BMC and MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority). She had also spoken against the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in 2021 when Shah Rukh Khan's son Aryan Khan had been arrested in a drug bust, accusing the then cabinet minister Nawab Malik of the undivided NCP of trying to influence the case. Referring to such statements by Sathe in the past, Rohit Pawar told media persons Wednesday, 'She has in the past taken the side of one party vociferously. So we want to request the Supreme Court Collegium to stop this proposal. We don't have doubt over her merit or capability. But looking at the current political scenario, question arises if common people will get justice? We as Opposition continuously speak against the government, so if our case goes in front of this judge, will we get justice?' Arun Sathe's BJP-RSS link Much like the current row, a similar controversy had erupted back in 2015, when Sathe's father, Arun Sathe, who is also the brother of former Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan, was appointed to the board of market regulator SEBI as a part-time member. Arun Sathe is also a lawyer, and has been a BJP worker with RSS background. He was a national executive member of the partyBJP, and held various positions in the student wing, ABVP. However, he had said at the time that he had been nominated by the finance ministry, and would do his job judiciously. '…I understand the differences between politics and market issues. As a lawyer, I will have views independent of biases,' he had told Business Standard in 2015. He had also said that he had been connected with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since childhood, and had been a part of the party since its Jan Sangh days. In 1989, he had tried to contest Lok Sabha polls from the Mumbai North West constituency against Congress's Sunil Dutt, but had lost. (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: Farmers' crosshairs to 'rummy' row, NCP's Kokate loses agri ministry after string of controversies
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC judges take exception to order against HC judge
NEW DELHI: Top judges of Supreme Court have taken strong exception to the order passed on Tuesday by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan castigating an Allahabad high court judge for lack of knowledge in criminal law and de-rostering him from hearing criminal cases for life, and are mulling steps to remedy an unpleasant situation created in breach of repeated SC rulings. A concerned Chief Justice of India B R Gavai consulted his senior colleagues and is now discussing ways and means to remedy the order that has created difficulties for the chief justice (CJ) of one of the oldest high courts of India, at Allahabad. SC has repeatedly ruled that the CJ of an HC is the master of the roster and he alone can allocate, roster and assign cases to single, division and three-judge benches in HC and that his discretion is not amenable to judicial orders. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan ordered the Allahabad HC CJ to "immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned judge" and "make the judge sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge". They also said, "We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office". Irrespective of the folly of the HC judge, SC, which gives primacy to principles of natural justice, passed the caustic and damaging order against the judge without giving him an opportunity to explain why he passed the impugned directive. Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan called the HC judge's order one of the worst they had come across in their tenures as SC judges, and said, "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of HC." TOI spoke to a number of former CJIs, who too expressed concern over the manner in which the bench led by Justice Pardiwala proceeded to castigate the HC judge, stressing that errors in HC orders are not uncommon and are regularly appealed in SC. A judge's mistake in appreciating legal points or facts in a particular case cannot empower SC, while deciding appeals against an HC judgment, to castigate the judge who authored that judgment and take punitive measures like de-rostering him, which, the ex-CJIs said, was the sole prerogative of the HC CJ. Incidentally, the bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had fixed timelines for the President and governors to grant or refuse assent to bills passed by state assemblies, while granting "deemed approval" to bills pending with the TN governor. The President has since sent a reference to SC seeking its opinion on whether the apex court has the power to fix timelines for her and governors when the Constitution does not provide for the same, and whether SC can use powers under Article 142 to grant deemed approval to bills. In the case of Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India (1997), SC had ruled: "Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers are certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre. It is best to remember the words of a jurist that 'a judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born'. .." In Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand (1997), another three-judge bench said "that the administrative control of HC vests in the chief justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst equals. The CJ is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted. The puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the chief justice or under his directions. No judge or judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the chief justice." This ruling was made applicable to SC by a three-judge bench's judgment in 2018.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
'What is legal and constitutional is moral': Justice Abhay Oka's powerful call for judicial integrity and constitutional morality
New Delhi, Aug 6 (UNI) 'Traditional morality is shaped by popular opinion. But judges are bound only by the Constitution.' In a thought-provoking keynote address that struck at the heart of judicial ethics, Justice Abhay S. Oka, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, delivered a scathing and insightful critique of the misuse of personal moral convictions in legal decision-making. Delivering a lecture on "Morality in Judiciary: A Paradigm or a Paradox", hosted by The Global Jurists, Justice Oka made it emphatically clear that for judges, morality must align solely with constitutional and legal principles. 'My personal view is simple,' he declared. 'Something which is legal and constitutional is moral. Something which is not legal and not constitutional is immoral nothing else matters for a judge.' Justice Oka argued that judges must resist the temptation to allow personal beliefs, societal expectations, or political noise to influence their decisions. 'A judge may follow a religion, hold personal moral values, or believe in a philosophy. But once he assumes office, these views must be locked away in a watertight compartment,' he said. He strongly cautioned that moral convictions have no place in jurisprudence. Referring to cases where individuals spend over a decade in prison without legal evidence, he called such decisions 'moral convictions masquerading as justice.' Justice Oka urged for a shift in how we view the judiciary at the grassroots level. 'It is wrong to call them subordinate or lower courts. They are the main courts of this country because it is here that the common man goes for justice,' he stated. Recalling his time as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, he said his first administrative order was to ensure the term 'subordinate courts' was discarded. 'The real mistake we made in the last 75 years was not focusing enough on the trial and district judiciary.' Justice Oka addressed the rising pressure judges face, particularly in heinous crimes or economic offenses. He cited how public outrage, media coverage, or political statements such as a Chief Minister declaring an accused will be hanged can create an atmosphere of fear for grassroots judges. 'The involvement of large sums of money or the gravity of the allegations may be one factor, but judges must decide bail strictly within the four corners of the law,' he affirmed. He added, 'Judges must be prepared to deliver verdicts that are not popular.' Touching upon exceptions, he noted that in rare cases, judges may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. However, even in such circumstances, he reiterated that decisions must stem from constitutional morality, not personal values. He also referenced dissenting judgments such as Justice H.R. Khanna's in the ADM Jabalpur case and the Kesavananda Bharati verdict to highlight the importance of judges staying true to constitutional principles, even at great personal cost. 'Three judges who gave the majority opinion in Kesavananda Bharati were superseded. But they were not swayed by the views of the ruling government.' Justice Oka acknowledged the flaws in the current judicial appointment system, particularly the delay between Collegium recommendations and appointments. He cited the example of Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, who withdrew his consent for judgeship after waiting nearly a year. 'The real challenge for Chief Justices is to convince good lawyers to join the Bench. But delay in appointments dissuades them,' he said, urging immediate government attention to this issue. Justice Oka concluded by recognizing the crisis of credibility in the judiciary and called for a recommitment to constitutional morality. 'Judges must set aside personal notions of morality, faith, religion, or political inclinations. That is the only way to meet the challenges before the judiciary today.' 'The job of a judge is not to preach. The question is not whether an action is good or bad, but whether it is legal or illegal.' He emphasized that criticism of judgments must be legal and balanced, urging the public and professionals to acknowledge both the right and wrong decisions of the courts. Justice Oka's powerful address served as a sobering reminder that justice cannot and must not be shaped by personal or societal moralities. Instead, it must emerge from the spirit and letter of the Constitution. 'The Constitution is our moral compass. That is the only morality a judge must know,' he concluded to resounding applause from a hall filled with eminent judges and legal luminaries. UNI SNG RN
