University teachers call off boycott, classes resume today
HYDERABAD:
The teachers of public sector universities in Sindh have decided to call off their boycott of classes from February 6, but their protest against the provincial government's controversial reforms regarding the appointment of vice chancellors will continue.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Abdul Rehman Nangraj, General Secretary of the Sindh chapter of the Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Association (FAPUASA), announced a shift in their protest strategy.
"We acknowledge that the prolonged boycott has disrupted students' education, and we deeply regret the academic setbacks they have faced," he said, emphasising that despite their efforts, the government has remained indifferent to their concerns.
While classes will resume, teachers will persist in their demonstration by wearing black armbands and raising awareness among students about the negative repercussions of the newly enacted legislation. The amendment, they argue, allows bureaucrats — who lack academic and research experience — to assume the role of vice chancellors, imperiling the autonomy of universities.
The teachers have resolved to boycott visits from ministers, MPAs, and bureaucrats to their campuses. They also plan to engage with national and international academic institutions to mount pressure on the provincial government to reconsider the legislation. Nangraj revealed that legal action against the amendment is also under consideration.
The protesting faculty contends that appointing bureaucrats as university heads will not only undermine academic freedom and excellence but also expose universities to increased political interference. "This legal move seems to be part of a broader strategy to suppress critical thinking and dissent within academic institutions," Nangraj asserted. He further stated that university autonomy is globally recognised as a key factor in academic progress and innovation.
The Sindh Assembly passed the Sindh Universities and Institutes Law (Amendment) Act, 2025, on February 1, despite strong opposition from academic circles, including the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. In response, university teachers promptly launched their protest, initially boycotting classes to voice their dissent.
Although they have now resumed academic activities, their resistance against the law remains unwavering, signaling an ongoing struggle for the independence of higher education institutions in the province.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Two arrested for human trafficking, visa fraud
The FIA (Multan Zone) has arrested two individuals involved in human trafficking and visa fraud as part of its ongoing crackdown on illegal migration networks. The arrests were made during major operations in different parts of the city. According to an FIA spokesperson, the arrested suspects have been identified as Muhammad Muzammil and Sher Khan. Both individuals were allegedly running scams by promising overseas employment to citizens in exchange for large sums of money. Preliminary probe revealed that Muhammad Muzammil tricked a citizen into paying Rs 852,000 by offering a fake job opportunity in Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Sher Khan allegedly defrauded another individual of Rs2 million with a false promise of employment in the UK. Despite taking significant amounts from their victims, the suspects failed to deliver on their promises and later went into hiding. The FIA successfully traced and arrested them from different localities in Multan. Migrant smuggling has grown more frequent and dangerous in the last few years, with the trend impacting the country's reputation. The government, under pressure to act to stop the illegal exodus, had on February 17 passed the "Prevention of Trafficking in Persons (Amendment) Bill, 2025," aimed at amending the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 and the "Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Bill, 2025," which amends the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018, from the National Assembly.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Now district judges will hear civil appeals, declares IHC
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Friday, ruled that instead of the high court, district judges would hear the civil appeals after the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025. A division bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Inaam Amin Minhas, declared that in a civil reference titled, 'The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Transfer of Appeals from Islamabad High Court to District Judges (East) & (West), Islamabad, in pursuance thereof.' The IHC office moved the instant reference and attached a list of cases pertaining to Regular First Appeals filed against the decrees or orders passed by learned civil judges working under the administrative control of the IHC. The list contained 1594 RFAs, which is stated to be tentative. The questions formulated in the reference were included whether amendment made in Section 18 is a matter of procedure and had retrospective effect? and whether High Court can transfer pending appeals to the District Judges on its own motion without notice to the parties to the lis? Justice Azam, who authored the judgment, said that the power of High Court delegated under Section 24, CPC, is further fortified in the judgment passed in Khan Muhammad and others Vs. Ishtiaq Hussain reported as 1987 SCMR 1482. He maintained, 'A statute amending the forum for institution of appeal or that of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the lis will obviously have retrospective effect unless otherwise provided by the subsequent Act. Prior to the instant amendment, appeals against interim orders passed by Civil Judges, where the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 2,500,000/-, were being filed in the High Court.' 'However, it is clarified that now any order passed by a Civil Judge during pendency of the proceedings is appealable before the District Judge. The Office shall also transmit those appeals filed against interim orders to the respective District Judges,' said the IHC. It continued that there is no opposition to this legal proposition or to the course adopted from either side. Resultantly, all the appeals filed against decrees or orders passed by learned Civil Judges, including but not limited to those listed in the annexed list, are hereby ordered to be remitted to the learned District Judges of the respective Divisions, who may entrust the same to the Additional District Judges in the ordinary distribution of work. It further said that given the fact that these appeals pertain to the year 2013, the district judges are expected to place the older appeals on fast track and dispose of the same as per guidelines and policy on the subject. The bench also said that the M.I.T. of this Court is also directed to oversee the distribution of the oldest appeals proactively and ensure their expeditious disposal, and submit periodic reports to this Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Bandial had sought increase in number of SC judges: CB
ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench Thursday revealed that in fact former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had asked for increasing the number of judges in the Supreme Court. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel divulged that while responding to the arguments of Hamid Khan that more judges were inducted in the Supreme Court (SC) so they be included in the constitutional bench for hearing of review petitions against the SC's judgment on reserved seats. Hamid Khan, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contended that was the reason the judges, who passed the majority judgment, including the author judge, were excluded from the bench. He also complained of not fixing review petitions against the majority judgment, which was delivered on July 12, 2024, before the enactment of 26th Constitutional Amendment. 8-member bench to hear pleas against SC bill Justice Mandokhel said; 'According to my information, request for increasing judges in Supreme Court was from former chief justice Umar Ata Bandial.' Justice Amin, explaining reason for delay in fixation of review petition, said because of two members of the Committee, set up under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, the reviews were delayed. Justice Amin further said after the 12th July judgment, when review petitions were filed then former Chief Justice (Qazi Faez) called a Committee's meeting to decide about hearing of review petitions. However, two members [Justice Mansoor and Justice Munib] at that time said were on summer vacations. Hamid Khan then contended that the review petition should have been heard after a decision on 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mandokhel responded that review petition was filed prior to petitions against the 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. At the onset of the proceeding, Justice Mandokhail inquired from PTI lawyer; 'Don't you think 3-day, time-line given in Article 51 of the constitution, has been extended in 8-judge's verdict.' Salman Akram Raja, appearing on behalf of PTI, replied, 'no'. He submitted that the judgment actually allowed the independents to join a political party to that they belonged. He told that the judgment derived power from Section 66 of the Election Act, which states how a candidate becomes a member of a political party. Raja also contended that after 24th December 2023, the ECP refused to recognise PTI as a political party, and declined to issue list of PTI reserved seats for women. Justice Mandokhel reminded Raja that in the main case, he had accepted the status of PTI candidates as independents, and admitted that he would not have any objection if the reserved seats were given to the SIC. Raja recalled that during the proceeding of the main case, Justice Athar Minallah raised issue of complete justice and asked won't he has objection if reserved seats were given to the PTI. The counsel said that he had bowed to that offer, adding the 8-judge judgment declared that joining of SIC by independents is nonest. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that there is nothing on record that 41 candidates, out of 80, filed party affiliation certificate or mentioned PTI in their nomination papers. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar remarked that if 39 independents could mention in their nomination papers PTI, then why 41 candidates did not write PTI. He questioned whether they had the fear that if they would do that than their papers would be rejected. Justice Mandokhel observed had the 41 candidates also mentioned PTI in their nomination paper then maximum damage they could face was the rejection of the papers. Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar questioned whether Section 94 is still part of Elections Act? Raja replied that he went to the Lahore High Court (LHC) against this provision, but the High Court dismissed it without passing any order, and remanded the matter to the ECP. Raja informed that he had challenged that order before the apex court, but the registrar's office returned his petition on 2nd February 2024. He told that the majority judgment declared the Explanation in Section 94 ultra vires of the constitution. Justice Mazhar inquired whether Section 94 was declared ultra vires in the short order or the judgment. Raja responded that in paras 4 and 5 of the majority judgment it was clarified why Section 94 was declared ultra vires. However, Justice Mazhar noted that there is no such declaration in the short order. He said once a thing is not considered in the short order then how come finding on it could be given in the detailed reasoning, adding this is a legal question, as it will come before the Court in future. The case was adjourned until Friday (June 27). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
