logo
Setback for Guv as Kerala HC rejects appeals over temporary VC appointments at two varsities

Setback for Guv as Kerala HC rejects appeals over temporary VC appointments at two varsities

Hindustan Times3 days ago
Kochi, In a setback to the Kerala Governor, who also serves as the Chancellor of major universities in the state, the High Court on Monday dismissed writ petitions challenging a single judge's verdict that declared the temporary appointments of Vice-Chancellors at J Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala Digital University as unsustainable. Setback for Guv as Kerala HC rejects appeals over temporary VC appointments at two varsities
The appeals were filed by the Chancellor and others, against the May 19, 2025 judgment which said the appointments were made without following proper legal procedure.
The controversy began after the Chancellor appointed two persons Ciza Thomas to the Kerala Digital University and K Sivaprasad to the J Abdul Kalam Technological University to the temporary posts of VC through notifications issued on November 27, 2024.
These appointments were made under the respective University Acts, citing powers to fill the post for a maximum of six months in the absence of a regular VC.
However, the state government challenged the appointments, arguing that they did not follow the procedure laid down in the Acts which require a panel of names to be recommended by the government and did not comply with University Grants Commission regulations.
The High Court's Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and P V Balakrishnan, upheld the single judge's ruling, agreeing that the notifications lacked legal backing.
The court observed that although the appointments were temporary, they still required adherence to the statutory process, including the submission of a panel of at least three eligible names by the government.
The judges also emphasised the importance of the VC's role, calling them the "bridge between academic and administrative functions" of a university.
They referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments which stressed that VCs must be selected independently, without political or external pressure, and in the best interest of the university.
While dismissing the appeals, the court noted the ongoing administrative deadlock in both universities and its negative effect on students.
It urged the Chancellor and the state government to act promptly to make regular VC appointments in line with the law and UGC norms.
"Considering the stalemate existing in the administration of the Technological University and the Digital University, which is continuing for a considerably long period, and which had an adverse impact on the functioning of the said universities and the interest of the student community, we are of the view that the Chancellor as well as the State Government will have to act pro-actively, to ensure that regular appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the said Universities are made, without any further delay," the court said.
The court also clarified that the UGC's 2018 regulations regarding qualifications and appointment procedures for university teachers and academic staff would override any conflicting provisions in state legislation.
The verdict has come as a relief for the CPI-led Left government, which has been at odds with the Governor over the administration of universities in the state.
Welcoming the HC order, Higher Education Minister R Bindu said the court had confirmed that the Governor's actions in appointing Vice-Chancellors were unlawful.
She said the High Court's rejection of the Governor's appeal supported what the state government had been saying all along.
"The Governor has powers, but when he crosses the limits, it causes problems," the minister said. She also called the Chancellor's move which she claimed could damage the reputation of universities disgraceful.
General Education and Labour Minister V Sivankutty also welcomed the ruling, calling it a win for the government's efforts to ensure transparency in the education sector.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kerala HC Cancels KEAM Result After Last-Minute Change In Prospectus
Kerala HC Cancels KEAM Result After Last-Minute Change In Prospectus

News18

timean hour ago

  • News18

Kerala HC Cancels KEAM Result After Last-Minute Change In Prospectus

Last Updated: Justice D K Singh ruled that the revised method of calculating engineering entrance ranks negatively impacted CBSE syllabus students. The Kerala government has appealed against the High Court single bench order that nullified the KEAM rank list. The Division Bench will review the appeal on Thursday. The High Court declared the Kerala Engineering, Architecture, and Medical (KEAM) exam results published by the government invalid. It used a new formula for consolidating marks, reported ANI. The single bench also instructed a revision of the KEAM rank list. The state government released the KEAM results last week, applying the new formula that addressed longstanding concerns from Kerala syllabus students about mark reductions due to consolidation. Hana Fathima, a student who completed Plus Two under the CBSE syllabus, filed a petition challenging the mark consolidation in the rank list. The Plus Two student approached the High Court, questioning this process, the ANI report added. The High Court accepted the student's argument that the prospectus was altered at the final stage of the admission process. The verdict considered that CBSE students lost the weightage they previously had due to the new mark consolidation equation. The government had announced that the rank list was prepared by combining marks from the entrance exam and Plus Two results. There were complaints that the former equation caused Kerala syllabus students to score 15 to 20 marks less than CBSE students. Justice D K Singh ruled that the revised method of calculating engineering entrance ranks negatively impacted CBSE syllabus students. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE), Kerala, released the rank list for the Kerala Engineering Architecture Medical (KEAM) Entrance Exam 2025 on July 1. The entrance exams were held from April 23 to 29. The engineering exams were conducted daily during the afternoon session, from 2 pm to 5 pm. The pharmacy entrance test took place over multiple sessions. On April 24, there were two sessions — one from 11:30 am to 1 pm, and another from 3:30 pm to 5 pm. The final pharmacy session was held on April 29 from 10 am to 11:30 am. view comments First Published: July 10, 2025, 08:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy

News18

time2 hours ago

  • News18

Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy

Last Updated: Only grounded, objective criteria - threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity - should govern permissible restrictions. The Supreme Court has rightly slammed the Karnataka government and the state film chamber for siding with the enemies of free speech. The apex court was aghast that no action was taken against those who threatened violence over the release of actor-politician Kamal Haasan's movie, Thug Life. The state government told the court that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film and also pledged to provide full security if the producers chose to release it. It was heartening to see in this case that the SC not just gave relief to the Thug Life makers but also wanted action against those who had issued threats. The apex court Bench, headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing petitions on June 19 filed by the Thug Life producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence. Thug Life was scheduled for release in Karnataka on June 5, but got embroiled in controversy following Haasan's comment that the Kannada language was 'born out of Tamil." The comment was widely resented by pro-Kannada groups, which demanded an apology from Haasan. Taking a brave stance, he refused to apologise, despite the threat of imminent commercial losses because of the non-release of the movie in the state. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also took a tough stand, saying that Thug Life would not be released without an apology from Haasan. When Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court, it chided him for his remarks and asked him to apologise. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it not only criticised the Karnataka government but also reprimanded the state High Court for having urged Haasan to apologise. 'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role," the SC said. On June 17, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rule of law requires a person to be able to release a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court warned the state that it could not allow 'mobs and vigilante groups to take over," asserting that public sentiment should not override legal rights. It was only after the SC snub that the Karnataka government pledged to maintain law and order and ensure the peaceful release of Thug Life. The government clarified that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film's release and would provide necessary protection and security. This was not the first case in which the adversaries of free speech exploited the notion of 'hurt sentiments" to justify censorship. Public intellectuals assist them by raising the wrong questions, by debating whether protests over a film, book, or song are justified, and by asking whether someone's feelings were really hurt. They should be asking instead: can hurt sentiments be a basis for banning anything? Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be regulated only by 'reasonable restrictions" for state security, friendly relations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offend. But nowhere does the Constitution permit restrictions based solely on hurt sentiments or feelings. The distinction is vital: while reasons can be scrutinized and debated objectively, sentiments are personal and cannot be uniformly measured or validated. Dictionaries define 'sentiment" as emotional attitudes or opinions influenced by feeling, and 'feeling" as unreasoned emotional reactions. By their nature, these are subjective—what deeply offends one group may leave another unmoved. Take, for example, the case of M.F. Husain: some Hindus found his work as hurtful, while others didn't. It must be mentioned here that the anti-blasphemy law, Section 299 of BNS, is used to gag free speech. Section 299 (which was earlier Section 295A of the IPC) says: 'Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 299 is logically untenable as it criminalises speech based on feelings, which—as we mentioned earlier—are subjective. Therefore, it is antithetical to India's constitutional spirit as it imposes vague restrictions on freedom of expression. The extant court cases are symptomatic of the systemic toxicity that sentimentalism has generated over the decades. Sentimentalism, along with its sibling sanctimoniousness, has supplanted reason in public discourse and political debate. Ranting, canting demagogues and intellectuals set the agenda, resulting in the silencing of dissent, throttling of creativity, and often atrocities against those who speak out—all in the name of soothing 'hurt sentiments.' This trend must be reversed. As Justice Bhuyan said, 'There is no end to hurt sentiments in India. If a stand-up comedian says something, sentiments are hurt, and there is vandalism… Where are we heading?" The reign of hurt sentiments must be dismantled from law and public life. Only grounded, objective criteria—threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity—should govern permissible restrictions. Otherwise, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: June 26, 2025, 16:10 IST News opinion Opinion | Reign Of 'Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store