Latest news with #SpecialLeavePetition
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
"Students must not suffer due to power tussle": SC urges Kerala Governor, State to resolve VC appointment dispute
New Delhi, July 30(UNI) In a significant observation, the Supreme Court today called upon the Kerala Governor (Chancellor of state universities) and the State government to amicably work together in the interest of students by initiating the regular appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Kerala Governor, challenging the Kerala High Court's ruling that quashed his unilateral appointment of temporary VCs without recommendations from the State Government. 'We expect the Chancellor also to extend cooperation and consider whatever comes from the State Government. Ultimately, this is not about power; it's about education. Why should students suffer because of this litigation?' remarked Justice Pardiwala during the hearing. The Court emphasised that until permanent Vice-Chancellors are appointed through a regular process, the Chancellor (Governor) may issue notifications allowing the current acting VCs to continue or appoint new ones temporarily, as per law. 'We impressed upon the Attorney General that the first step should be to initiate the process for the appointment of regular VCs. This may take time. In the meantime, it is open for the Chancellor to appoint or continue with temporary VCs,' the Court stated. The case stems from the Governor's appointment of Dr K Sivaprasad and Dr Ciza Thomas as temporary VCs of the two state universities in November 2024, without the State Government's recommendation. The Kerala High Court's single bench quashed the appointments on May 19, and a division bench upheld the ruling on July 14, reinforcing that such appointments must align with the Technological University Act and Digital University Act, both of which limit such temporary appointments to six months and require consultation with the government. The Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, appearing for the Governor, argued that the Governor's powers stem from UGC Regulations, which override state university laws. He emphasized the 'recurring problem' of deadlock between the State and Chancellor, which necessitated temporary appointments. However, the Court noted that the temporary VC term (appointed November 27, 2024) had expired on May 27, 2025, and pressed for resolution through institutional harmony. 'There cannot be a stalemate,' said Justice Pardiwala. 'There has to be normalcy between the Chancellor and the State Government. Otherwise, students will be the sufferers.' The State Government, represented by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, informed the Court that the regular appointment process had already been initiated but was stalled due to a legal challenge over the constitution of the Search Committee. The Kerala High Court had issued an interim order in the government's favor, effectively halting the process. The Supreme Court, while keeping the matter pending, directed both the Centre and the State to work out a mechanism for prompt regular appointments. It urged both parties to act not out of political rivalry but in the best interest of higher education. 'All that is important is to appoint the right person. Mr. Gupta, you have a crucial role. Mr. Attorney, and you can sort this out. We are only concerned with students,' the bench remarked before concluding the day's proceedings. UNI SNG AAB
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Rahul Gandhi spreading hatred through pre-planned actions, UP govt tells Supreme Court in Savarkar defamation case
NEW DELHI: The Uttar Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is deliberately spreading hatred through pre-planned actions, referring to his alleged remarks against freedom fighter Veer Savarkar during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022. The government made this claim in an affidavit filed in response to Gandhi's Special Leave Petition (SLP), which seeks to quash a summons issued by a Lucknow lower court based on a criminal complaint by lawyer Nripendra Pandey. A two-judge bench of the top court, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, is scheduled to hear the matter. In its previous hearing on 25 April, the Supreme Court had stayed the Allahabad High Court's order refusing to quash the summons and had directed the UP government to file a response. The Yogi Adityanath-led government, in its affidavit, defended the summons and urged the court to dismiss Gandhi's appeal, stating, "All the allegations are supported by the investigation, which indicates deliberate spreading of hatred through pre-planned actions." The affidavit claimed that the magistrate had thoroughly reviewed the case file, statements, and investigation report before issuing the summoning order under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 505 (statements conducive to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making 'scandalous remarks' and 'per se contemptuous' allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate. Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31. In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'. The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said. The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.' The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.' On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined. Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.' While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
New Indian Express
22-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
7/11 Mumbai train blasts case: Maharashtra moves SC challenging Bombay HC's acquittals of 12 convicts
NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra government on Tuesday knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court by filing an appeal challenging Monday's Bombay High Court verdict acquitting all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before a bench of the top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai, seeking urgent listing and hearing of the appeal. After hearing Mehta's submission, the CJI-led bench agreed to list the matter for hearing on Thursday. During the brief hearing, Mehta told the top court that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was ready. 'Please list it tomorrow... There is urgency,' the SG pleaded. CJI Gavai responded by stating that he had read in the papers that eight accused had already been released from prison following the High Court's Monday, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 train blasts case as it set aside the Special MCOCA Court's 2015 order that had handed the death sentence to five and life imprisonment to seven others, saying it was 'hard to believe' they committed the crime.
United News of India
16-07-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC allows Hany Babu to seek Bail in Bhima Koregaon case
New Delhi, Jul 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted liberty to former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu to approach either the trial court or the High Court for bail in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale passed the order while dismissing a miscellaneous application filed by Babu seeking clarification that the withdrawal of his earlier Special Leave Petition (SLP) did not prevent the High Court from hearing his bail plea. The court also said that Babu could seek revival of the earlier SLP filed in the Supreme Court. In September 2022, the Bombay High Court denied bail to Babu, who was arrested in July 2020 by the NIA over alleged Maoist links in the Bhima Koregaon case. Subsequently, in May 2024, he withdrew his SLP in the Supreme Court, stating his intent to approach the High Court for bail, citing a change in circumstances. On May 2 this year, the High Court observed that the Supreme Court's order allowing withdrawal did not expressly reserve liberty for him to approach it again, and asked Babu to seek clarification from the top court. During today's hearing, Advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for Babu, submitted that he has spent five years as an undertrial and withdrew his SLP to approach the High Court as several co-accused had been granted bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration. She stated that in comparison to these accused, Babu was 'better placed.' The court was informed that the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, and Sudha Bharadwaj, while the Supreme Court granted bail to P Varavara Rao on medical grounds, and to Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves, and Arun Ferreira on merits. Opposing the plea, the NIA counsel submitted that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable as a fresh bail petition lay before the NIA court, and the High Court would act as an appellate court under UAPA provisions. He argued, 'This is an interim bail couched as an MA.' Justice Mithal suggested that the petitioner approach the trial court, observing, 'Your primary ground is, some other accused has been granted bail, that can also be considered by the trial court.' Advocate Roy responded that constitutional courts could grant bail despite the restrictions of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, relying on judgments like K.A. Najeeb, which held that courts can grant bail on grounds of delayed trial and violation of Article 21. Justice Mithal acknowledged that constitutional courts can grant bail but questioned, 'Can we direct the High Court to consider a matter which does not lie before it?' He also noted that Babu's current plea was based on parity with co-accused and not specifically on grounds of delayed trial. Concluding the hearing, the bench ordered, 'The miscellaneous application is dismissed, leaving it open to seek remedies either before the trial court or the High Court or seek revival of the SLP.'
