Ministers likely to meet governor today
: Amidst the widening rift between Governor Rajendra Arlekar and state govt, higher education minister R Bindu and law minister P Rajeeve are scheduled to call on the governor at Raj Bhavan on Sunday.
Since governor reappointed Ciza Thomas and K Sivaprasad as interim vice-chancellors (VCs) of Digital University Kerala (DUK) and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) respectively, overlooking the panels submitted by govt, the meeting with ministers isn't expected to bring about a significant change in the strained relations. The ministers were given time to meet the governor at chief minister
Pinarayi Vijayan
's request to discuss the way forward in view of the Supreme Court directive to initiate proceedings for appointing regular VCs at the earliest.
Vijayan had conveyed his disapproval of the new interim VCs and wanted candidates from govt's list to be appointed. "The ministers may only repeat what CM conveyed to governor through a letter. Govt is unlikely to soften its stand unless the first move towards reconciliation comes from Raj Bhavan," said govt sources.
However, Raj Bhavan sources said state govt was taking the media for a ride by falsely accusing governor for reappointing interim VCs in the two universities.
"Unlike what govt claims, the persons whom govt recommended as interim VCs were not eligible to the posts, as per conditions laid out in the respective acts and rules of the two universities," sources added.
According to KTU and DUK acts, either a VC of a nearby university or the pro-VC of the same university can be appointed as interim VC. Though the acts say that the secretary of higher education can also be considered as interim VC, the Supreme Court has already ruled against such a proposition.
"The chancellor can appoint persons recommended by govt only if govt recommends persons who fulfil the conditions stipulated in the university acts.
Since none of the persons in the govt panel were eligible, the chancellor had no option but to reappoint the former VCs in charge. The SC also mentioned in the order that the chancellor is free to reappoint the former interim VCs for a six-month period," Raj Bhavan sources said.
Meanwhile, state higher education principal secretary Sharmila Mary Joseph, who obtained an appointment to meet the governor at Raj Bhavan on Saturday, didn't turn up for the meeting.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Friendship Day wishes
,
messages
and
quotes
!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Pray to God USTM is demolished: Himanta
The University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM) has been constructed within a reserve forest, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma claimed, citing a 'committee of the Supreme Court.' He said it was up to Meghalaya government to deal with the issue. 'My prayer to God is that it should be demolished as early as possible. USTM is not an educational institute but one that commercialises education. Since it is not in Assam, I can only pray to God for its demolition,' said Sarma who had earlier held the USTM and its chancellor Mahbabul Haque responsible for the floods in Guwahati. 'Nobody can guarantee it will exist at its present site after two years,' Sarma said provocatively. Experts come together at snake symposium The first ever 'Assam Snake Symposium' held recently in Guwahati turned out to be a treasure trove, where over 80 snake rescuers from across the state, alongside national and international experts, researchers, and policymakers gathered. Attending the event, Assam Forest Minister Chandra Mohan Patowary announced the government's decision to constitute a state-level steering committee on snakebite mitigation. He also proposed establishment of a state-of-the-art serpentarium in Assam to facilitate advanced research on snake venom, addressing the region-specific challenges of envenomation and treatment.
New Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Allahabad High Court judge barred from hearing criminal cases
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court has stripped criminal matters off the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge 'till he demits office' after he 'erroneously' upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. Taking stern view on the judge's order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed removal of criminal matters from his roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. Calling the order by the high court judge 'worst and most erroneous', the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery of the balance amount. '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 High Court,' the bench said. The top court was hearing a challenge to the high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. 'The Chief Justice of the High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge... make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' the top court order read.
Hans India
26 minutes ago
- Hans India
Centre opposes lowering age of consent
New Delhi: The Union government has objected before the Supreme Court to any move to reduce the age of consent under child protection laws from 18 to 16 years, warning that such a change would open the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law,' the Centre, represented Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, clarified in written submissions placed on record. To buttress its argument, the Centre cited a 2007 Ministry of Women and Child Development study which found that 53.22% of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse. It noted that in 50% of these cases, the abusers were persons in positions of trust or authority, including parents, relatives, neighbours, and school staff. 'The report concluded that children are particularly vulnerable when the offender is a known figure, as the abuse is concealed, normalised, or silenced through emotional manipulation or fear,' the Centre explained. The Centre's position is in contrast to that of senior advocate and amicus curiae Indira Jaising, who has argued before the court that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as 'abuse' or criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Jaising urged the court to read a 'close-in-age exception' into the law, which would apply to consensual sexual activity where both individuals are adolescents aged between 16 and 18. She submitted that the term 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act should not include adolescents in this age group engaged in consensual sexual relationships. Such an exception, she argued, would align with the protective intent of POCSO while avoiding its misuse in cases involving non-exploitative adolescent relationships. However, the Centre maintained that defining 'child' as a person below 18 years was a 'deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity.' 'The decision to criminalise sexual acts with children under 18 years reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved… This legislative position embodies the collective will of Parliament, acting in furtherance of its constitutional duty to protect children,' the Centre submitted. 'The legislative intent is further reinforced by the age threshold adopted in other enactments, including the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006… The legal position is again affirmed under Section 375 of the IPC and is retained under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, where sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape per se, regardless of her purported willingness,' the Union government submitted. The government said the legislative framework on the age of consent under Indian law was rooted in a clear and unambiguous intent to provide a 'robust, non-negotiable shield' to minors against sexual exploitation.
