Latest news with #G.R.Swaminathan
The Wire
2 days ago
- The Wire
‘Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC The Wire Staff 8 minutes ago The bench also slammed the police for failing to respond to the urgent messages sent by the petitioner and forcing the woman to go with her parents. Photo: Yoga Balaji/Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 3.0. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now New Delhi: While granting relief to a woman who wanted to go with her female partner, the Madras high court has ruled that the fact that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family' is well-settled in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The division bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan were hearing the habeas corpus petition of the woman partner of the 25-year-old woman who was detained by her family against her will. 'We have come to the conclusion that the detenue is entitled to go with the petitioner (female partner) and that she cannot be detained against her will by her family members,' said the bench, reported New Indian Express. The court also restrained the family members of the woman from 'interfering with her personal liberty'. The court also also issued a 'writ of continuing mandamus' to the jurisdictional police for providing sufficient protection to the woman and her partner as and when required. 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of a 'chosen family' is now well-settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,' said the court. The court said the Supreme Court's order in the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India case may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples but they can very well form a family. Court slams police for forcing the woman to go with her parents The bench noted that the petitioner has not mentioned anywhere about the true nature of their relationship but called herself a close friend. The court said that it understood the hesitation on her part since the society is still conservative. The bench also slammed the police in Gudiyatham in Vellore district, Reddiyarpalayam in Puducherry and Jeevan Beema Nagar in Karnataka for failing to respond to the urgent messages sent by the petitioner and forcing the woman to go with her parents. The bench also rejected the statement made by the woman's mother that the petitioner had led her daughter 'astray' and turned her into a 'drug addict.' The court said that it had endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter is entitled to choose a life of her own since she is an adult as the law is clear and the precedents are clearer on the issue. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News 'Not the Statements to be Made': Karnataka HC Tells BJP MLC to Apologise to DC Over Pakistan Remarks Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us The Gujarat Evictions and the Weaponisation of National Security The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M When the Supreme Court Echoes Populist Sentiments, It Risks Undermining the Constitution's Voice For Mahmudabad's Bail Observations, We Cannot Blame Just the Supreme Court Bombay HC Slams State, College For Rustication, Arrest of Student Over Post on Operation Sindoor SC Extends Stay on BJP Minister Vijay Shah's Arrest; Closes Madhya Pradesh HC Proceedings 'In Public Interest': MMRDA Tells SC as it Scraps Tender for Mumbai Elevated Road, Tunnel Projects View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
United News of India
4 days ago
- General
- United News of India
Tamil Nadu moves SC against Madras High Court stay on Vice-Chancellor appointment amendments
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court's interim stay on the state's recent amendments that curtailed the Governor's powers in appointing Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of state universities. The Madras High Court, through a Division Bench led by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, had granted the stay, ruling that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 particularly Regulation 7.3 prevail over state legislation under the constitutional principle of repugnancy. In its petition to the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government has argued that the interim stay granted by the High Court effectively amounts to granting final relief, which is legally unsustainable. The state further contended that the High Court failed to take into account its request to transfer the case to the Supreme Court, which had already been communicated earlier. The High Court's stay blocks the operation of amendments made to the Tamil Nadu Universities Laws, which aimed to transfer the power of appointing Vice-Chancellors from the Governor (as Chancellor) to the state government. The amendments were passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2022 and 2023, and had become a key point of constitutional friction between the Governor and the elected state government. While the UGC Regulations, 2018 were partially adopted by the Tamil Nadu government, they had expressly excluded Regulation 7.3, which stipulates the composition of the search committee and the procedure for appointing VCs. Despite this, the High Court held that the exclusion of Regulation 7.3 was impermissible, asserting that central law (UGC Regulations) overrides state law when the two are in conflict, as per Article 254 of the Constitution. The Tamil Nadu government, however, maintains that education is a subject in the Concurrent List, and that states have legislative competence to enact laws governing universities, particularly when the UGC Act does not expressly override the field. It further accused the High Court of bypassing constitutional norms, arguing that interim relief should not exceed the contours of final adjudication. Citing two key Supreme Court judgments, the High Court had, on May 22 and 23, 2025, quashed appointments of Vice-Chancellors in separate instances for violating Regulation 7.3, and warned of the dangers of 'lack of transparency or malpractice' in appointments if statutory procedures were not followed. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the transfer petition, signalling that the matter will now be judicially examined at the highest level, potentially setting a precedent on the limits of state autonomy versus central regulations in the field of higher education.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Misplaced urgency: On the Madras High Court interim order
By staying the operation of Tamil Nadu's multiple amended Acts — to the extent that they empower the government to appoint Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) of 18 State universities — the Madras High Court has effectively halted the momentum that followed last month's landmark Supreme Court verdict, which granted deemed assent to 10 Bills on which the Tamil Nadu Governor had inordinately delayed action. The interim order, delivered by Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, effectively restores to the Governor-Chancellor, the powers of appointing V-Cs, which those very Bills had sought to divest. The result is a continuing stalemate: nearly a dozen universities remain headless, with appointments frozen until further judicial intervention. The Vacation Bench, acting on a petition by a lawyer, held that interim relief was justified because the impugned Acts 'fall foul of the law' laid down by the Supreme Court in prior rulings on V-C appointments. These include Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University) and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs The State Of Gujarat (Sardar Patel University). In both cases, the appointment of V-Cs was quashed for violating Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which govern the composition of search committees and procedures for V-C appointments. The High Court rejected the State's argument that it had adopted the UGC Regulations in 2021 with a caveat excluding Regulation 7.3. The judges held that stripping the Chancellor of appointment powers was plainly unconstitutional — '... is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes,' they wrote. What is equally glaring, however, is the misplaced urgency with which the Bench moved to deprive the amended Acts of legal effect. The High Court overlooked the Higher Education Department counsel's submission that the State had mentioned before the Supreme Court seeking urgent listing of a petition to transfer the instant case to itself; and that the Supreme Court had indicated that the High Court may be apprised of this fact. Judicial propriety would suggest that a lower court must exercise restraint in such cases. Moreover, the interim order was passed without affording the State adequate time to file its counter affidavit. In any case, while the current impasse on V-C appointments in Tamil Nadu persists, given the conflicting case precedents — Kalyani Mathivanan and Jagdish Prasad Sharma among them — the Supreme Court, should it hear the case, must settle, once and for all, the critical question: can UGC Regulations issued by a subordinate authority override State legislation enacted under constitutional authority?
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
TASMAC FIRs shall not be closed for now, AG assures Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on Thursday recorded the submission of Advocate General P.S. Raman that he would advise the Home Secretary to not close, for the present, any of the First Information Reports (FIRs) based on which Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had begun a money laundering probe against Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) officials. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan recorded the submission and adjourned by three weeks a public interest litigation petition filed by Tirunelveli based advocate Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy seeking transfer of all those FIRs from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner feared the money laundering probe by the ED would get sabotaged if the DVAC ends up closing all the FIRs related to the predicate offence of corruption. Therefore, he insisted on issuing a direction to transfer the FIRs from the DVAC to the CBI.
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court stays amendments taking away T.N. Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (May 21, 2025) stayed the operation of a series of amendments carried out by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to make the State government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for Vice-Chancellors of various State-run universities. A summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay pursuant to a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli to declare all the amendment Acts as null and void. The orders were passed after hearing senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, assisted by V.R. Shanmuganathan, for the petitioner and Advocate-General P.S. Raman as well as Senior Counsel P. Wilson representing the Chief Secretary and Higher Education Secretary respectively. Initially, the A-G as well as Mr. Wilson urged the court to grant time for filing a counter affidavit and contended that there was absolutely no urgency in taking up the stay petition for hearing during the summer vacation hearing. However, the Bench rejected their request. The Division Bench was also informed that the State government had already filed a petition before the Supreme Court urging it to transfer the PIL petition, pending before the High Court, to itself and hear it along with connected cases already pending before the top court. Higher Education Secretary C. Samayamoorthy too filed a memo before the High Court contending that the PIL petition was politically motivated as it had been filed by a person who was the Tirunelveli district secretary of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and an advocate by profession. Though the petitioner had challenged the State laws on 56 grounds, his primary contention was that the laws 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. Stating the validity of Regulation 7.3 was in itself a subject matter of the litigations pending before the Supreme Court for quite sometime now, the Secretary said it would only be appropriate to transfer the present PIL petition to the top court and tag it along with the cases pending there. The memo also stated that a mention was made before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on May 19, 2025, seeking early listing of the transfer petition and that the CJI had orally asked the counsel for the State government to inform the High Court about the transfer petition. The Higher Education Secretary further stated there was no grave urgency involved in the case for the High Court to hear the matter during summer vacation, without providing sufficient time for the State government to file a detailed counter affidavit, meeting out all 56 grounds. He urged the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan to defer the hearing on the PIL petition until the disposal of the transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court.
