Kerala University owes its crisis to Syndicate's ignorance of the Act and Statutes: Rajan Gurukkal
Prof. Gurukkal stated that the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor (V-C), is the executive body of any university, and without the Vice-Chancellor, the Syndicate has no legal or functional existence.
'However, many mistakenly see the Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor as separate entities. This statutory ignorance is the root-cause of the crisis in Kerala University. In fact, the Syndicate members have no individual authority outside their collective role. At the same time, the Vice-Chancellor is the sole chief executive and academic head of the university,' he asserted.
He added that the unanimous decisions adopted by the Syndicate are legally void, unless the meetings are presided over by the Vice-Chancellor. Besides, in cases of insubordination, Registrars must be aware that their statutory powers ultimately depend on the Vice-Chancellor's discretion.
False convention
According to him, Kerala University has long upheld the false convention of treating Syndicate members as individual authorities. Under this 'illusion,' members have enjoyed undue privileges, such as private offices, considering themselves to be like 'Ministers' in a university 'Cabinet,' despite having no individual portfolios or administrative powers.
'Members may serve on standing committees related to academics, administration, examinations and other areas, but these are meant to aid Syndicate decision-making faster and do not confer executive authority. Such roles require small meeting rooms, not personal offices. Legally, they are entitled solely to temporary accommodation, whether on campus or elsewhere at the university's expense,' Prof. Gurukkal said.
The academic also suggested that Syndicate members, who are often nominated from various constituencies, may be academically outdated or politically backed individuals, lacking the expertise or vision needed for university growth. Many are unfamiliar with even the basic University Act and Statutes. 'But when members aligned with the ruling party form a caucus, they may promote narrow agendas. Interestingly, real politicians like MLAs or MPs who serve on the Syndicates rarely engage in such behaviour.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Pune drug party: Alcohol consumption confirmed in two samples including Khadse's son-in-law
A day after a late-night raid on a drug party in a plush Kharadi housing society, Pune police on Monday confirmed that two of the seven individuals arrested had consumed alcohol, which includes Pranjal Khewalkar, son-in-law of senior Nationalist Congress Party/NCP (SP) leader Eknath Khadse. Reports to ascertain whether or not Khewalkar and others had consumed narcotics substances are awaited, the police said. Blood and urine samples of all the accused were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for further analysis to determine narcotics use, the police said. (HT) Earlier on Sunday, crime branch officials carried out a raid at around 3.30 am at a rented studio apartment in Kharadi when seven persons — five men and two women — were arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Subsequently, all accused were brought to Sassoon General Hospital for medical examination and sample collection. According to the preliminary report by the chief medical officer at Sassoon, Khewalkar and Shripad Yadav tested positive for alcohol consumption. Blood and urine samples of all the accused were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for further analysis to determine narcotics use, the police said. A senior officer confirmed, 'Primary reports suggest consumption of alcohol by Khewalkar and Yadav. For drug confirmation, we are awaiting laboratory results.' The investigation further revealed that a similar party had been held at the same location the previous weekend. Frequent late-night gatherings and loud music had prompted a neighbour to alert the police, leading to Sunday's raid. The accused were produced in court the same day and remanded to two days of police custody. Meanwhile, NCP (SP) women's wing state president and wife of Khewalkar, Rohini Khadse, was in Pune on Monday to meet police commissioner Amitesh Kumar. Though the meeting was initially cancelled, she met him later in the evening. Senior leader Eknath Khadse raised questions about the timing and selective release of the medical reports. 'If the alcohol report is out so quickly and shared with the media, why is there a delay in the drug test report? The Porsche case in Pune last year saw tampering of blood samples at the same hospital — can we trust the system this time?' he asked. Rohini Khadse, in a post on X, also expressed concern: 'As his family, we have not received a copy of the medical report, though it is already with the media. We request the police and media to share it with us so we can respond appropriately and fairly.' Officials said that the probe is underway to determine who brought three packets of cocaine found hidden in a cigarette pack and seized during the raid. Amitesh Kumar, Pune police commissioner, said, 'Blood samples of the accused have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to check whether or not any of the accused had consumed drugs.'
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Fake News' Clause Removed: Karnataka Govt RevisMisinformation Bill After Facing Flak
Last Updated: The initial draft had proposed the creation of a 'Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority' and included severe penal provisions but this was seen as overreaching The Karnataka government is set to revise its proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, after an earlier draft triggered widespread criticism and raised questions over legal tenability. The words 'fake news" have been removed from the new version and, as it stands revised titled the Karnataka Misinformation Regulation Bill, 2025, it is expected to be tabled during the monsoon session of the state assembly. According to sources, the scrutiny committee headed by state law minister HK Patil has cleared the draft, which is likely to be placed before the cabinet. News18 accessed a copy of the draft bill, which comes at a time when governments across India are stepping up digital regulation. WHAT DOES THE DRAFT BILL SAY? In the draft bill that will be submitted in the upcoming monsoon session beginning August 19, the definition of misinformation has been retained: 'knowingly or recklessly making a false or inaccurate statement of fact, whether wholly or in part, in the context in which it appears, excluding opinion, satire, religious or philosophical sermons, and parody – as long as a reasonable person would not interpret the content as factual". The bill defines 'communication" as dissemination of information to 10 or more persons in Karnataka, through any medium — including bots, computer resources, television, or in-person communication. This applies to content originating both inside and outside Karnataka, as long as it reaches people within the state. The offence of misinformation is defined as follows: 'no person, whether inside or outside Karnataka, shall communicate or abet the communication of misinformation to persons in Karnataka if such communication disrupts public tranquillity, affects the conduct of free and fair elections in any part of the state, or incites others to commit an offence. Anyone found guilty can be punished with imprisonment ranging from three months to five years and a fine. Abetment carries a punishment of up to two years' imprisonment and a fine." SPECIAL COURTS TO DIRECT MEDIA HOUSES The draft bill states that special courts may be established to issue directions to media houses to correct or take down content. Non-compliance can lead to up to two years' imprisonment and a daily fine of Rs 25,000. 'For the purpose of providing for speedy trial of offences under this Act, the State Government shall, with concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish Special Court comprising a Sessions Judge," the draft bill states. CONTROVERSIAL 'SANATAN' CLAUSE TO BE DROPPED? 'The first 'so-called draft' seen in the public domain was fake. We have been working on a comprehensive one that will control misinformation and also ensure that people get what is 'real news'," a source in the IT/BT ministry said. The bill had come under fire from several quarters after the draft included terms flagged as excessive, especially a clause that proposed a seven-year jail term for the 'publication of content amounting to disrespect of Sanatan symbols and beliefs on social media platforms". This clause was among the most controversial and is likely to be dropped or reworded, sources said. The revised version is presently under scrutiny of the IT BT, home, and law departments. The first two are reviewing the penal clauses, which were earlier flagged for their severity. Officials involved in the review said several portions of the earlier draft had been directly lifted from the Union government's 2019 Fake News (Prohibition) Bill. 'It mentions ministers like information and broadcasting, which is not even a state subject. Section 15, which deals with company offences, was also reportedly taken verbatim from Section 7 of the Union bill. All of this, officials said, has now been reviewed and reworked in the revised version. Even the Rs 10 lakh penalty was copied from the Centre's bill, all of it had to be reviewed and worked upon," a senior official told News18. In April last year, the ministry of corporate affairs introduced the draft Digital Competition Act to tackle anti-competitive behaviour by tech giants such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and X. In a similar development, X Corp (formerly Twitter) filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court in March, questioning the Centre's powers under Section 69A of the IT Act after being ordered to block more than 8,000 accounts in India. Later that year, Meta was fined Rs 213.14 crore by the Competition Commission of India for alleged violations of competition law linked to WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy, which reportedly allowed data to be shared across Meta platforms. WhatsApp was also asked to trace the origin of flagged messages, raising questions around its end-to-end encryption. It has challenged the 2021 IT Rules in the Delhi HC. State IT-BT minister Priyank Kharge had earlier told News18: 'We're not trying to change any policy but only trying to strengthen what already exists and ensure that there is 'news' and not misinformation that is given out to people," adding, 'the idea is to look at what already exists, connect the dots, and bring out an effective bill." Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Misinformation view comments Location : Bengaluru, India, India First Published: July 29, 2025, 06:30 IST News politics 'Fake News' Clause Removed: Karnataka Govt RevisMisinformation Bill After Facing Flak 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.
United News of India
4 hours ago
- United News of India
Cash recovery alone not ground for impeachment, Kapil Sibal argues in SC, in defence of Justice Yashwant Varma
New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today heard arguments in a sensitive case involving a sitting High Court judge, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asserting that the recovery of unaccounted cash from the outhouse of a judge cannot, by itself, constitute 'misconduct' or 'proved incapacity', the only grounds for removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry committee that indicted him, as well as a recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, seeking initiation of impeachment proceedings. Sibal, appearing on behalf of Justice Varma, questioned the legal basis of the recommendation. 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act governs the procedure for removal of judges. "A mere finding of cash in the outhouse, without a clear link to misconduct or incapacity, cannot justify impeachment,' he submitted. He added, 'If cash is found in the outhouse, what specific behaviour of the judge is being impugned? There is no allegation of misconduct, much less 'proved misbehaviour' as required by the Constitution.' Justice Datta, however, pointed out that such conduct could amount to 'misbehaviour' under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Sibal acknowledged the possibility but countered that even then, it may not rise to the level necessary to warrant removal from office. The Bench also noted that Justice Varma had not disputed the incident of fire at the premises or the subsequent cash recovery. In response, Sibal stressed that no investigative body or the in-house panel could conclusively determine the ownership of the cash, and no inference should be drawn against the judge without substantive proof. At the core of Sibal's argument was the contention that the Chief Justice of India has no constitutional authority to initiate or recommend impeachment proceedings. 'It is for the Members of Parliament to move such a motion if they are convinced that a judge's conduct warrants removal,' he said. 'The President and Prime Minister are completely alien to this process,' he emphasized. When Justice Datta pointed out that the committee's findings are not considered as formal 'evidence' under law, Sibal replied, 'Yet those findings became the basis for the CJI's communication recommending removal. Once that happens, what is Parliament expected to do other than follow it?' Justice Datta clarified that any removal must follow the due process laid out under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires an inquiry by a three-judge committee before any motion in Parliament. The Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for Wednesday, indicating that it will continue to examine both procedural and constitutional aspects of the case. UNI SNG RN
