Governor has powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors to State universities, says C.P. Radhakrishnan
The Governors who had been guaranteed with certain powers as per the Indian Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling had powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors to State universities, Governor of Maharashtra C.P. Radhakrishnan said.
During an informal chat with reporters here on Friday, Mr. Radhakrishnan, after garlanding the statue of martyr Azhagumuthu Kone in Palayamkottai, said the Constitution had guaranteed certain powers to the Governor and the Chief Minister. The Governor, the first citizen of the State, should be given the due respect for the position he was occupying.
While the Chief Minister had been given a lot of rights, the Governor had also been bestowed with a some powers by the Constitution. If the Chief Minister exercised his powers rightly, the State would stand to benefit a lot. The Chief Ministers should not intrude into the few powers of the Governors and try to snatch them away, he said.
Mr. Radhakrishnan said the Governor had the powers to appoint the Vice-Chancellors of the State universities as per the Supreme Court verdict in a case represented by the Government of Kerala. Since the Tamil Nadu Government was attempting to violate this ruling, the Governor was trying to prevent it.
On Chief Minister M.K. Stalin's recent observation that the youth should not follow 'Godse's path', he said no one should support violence and extremism. 'If that is the point [of the Chief Minister], why did he hug the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict?,' he asked.
After participating in the consecration of Sri Durgai Amman Temple at Nadukkallur near here, Mr. Radhakrishnan inaugurated two classrooms built at a cost of ₹50 lakh in Manonmaniam Sundaranar University with Tirunelveli MLA Nainar Nagenthiran's constituency development fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
West Bengal Governor to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state government. The move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining absent. Several VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their absence. Sources in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly. 'This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities — the chancellor (governor) or the state government,' Bose told reporters at the Raj Bhavan. The meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly."This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities - the chancellor (governor) or the state government," Bose told reporters at the Raj meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission's (EC) claim of having constitutional powers to verify voters' citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls contradicts earlier court rulings. According to a report by The Indian Express, ADR also criticised the EC for excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as acceptable proof of identity, calling the move 'patently absurd,' especially as Aadhaar is widely used for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residency documents. 'Grave fraud' in rush to revise rolls The ADR, the petitioner in the matter, argued that the EC has not provided valid reasons for hurrying through the revision ahead of Bihar's Assembly polls. The group described the process as a 'grave fraud' on the state's electorate. The revision exercise, announced on June 24, has been controversial due to its timing and new requirement that voters registered after 2003 must provide several documents to stay on the electoral rolls. This has raised fears that many legitimate voters could be disenfranchised. ADR has submitted its response to the EC's affidavit, filed on July 21. In that affidavit, the EC claimed that Article 326 of the Constitution permits it to verify the citizenship of voters and clarified that being removed from the electoral roll does not mean loss of citizenship. The matter will be heard next on 28 July. Citizenship verification against court judgments? ADR argued that the EC's claim of authority to verify citizenship goes against earlier Supreme Court decisions. It cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which stated that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not existing voters. It also referenced Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the court held that being on the electoral roll is strong proof of citizenship, and the onus to disprove it lies with those who object. ADR criticised the EC's directive requiring voters added after 2003 to produce one of 11 specified documents, saying this wrongly shifts the burden of proof to voters. 'It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,' ADR said. The group questioned why the existing legal procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with a fresh set of documentation and a new form. ADR also said the EC had not provided any data showing foreign nationals or illegal migrants had been included in the electoral rolls. EC's Aadhaar rejection 'absurd' In its July 21 affidavit, the EC refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to include Aadhaar, ration cards, and Voter ID as valid documents, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained using false papers. ADR countered that the EC's list of 11 acceptable documents is also open to fraud. It added, 'The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI's rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd.' 'Violations' by officials ADR alleged that EC officials on the ground are not following the Commission's own rules. The June 24 guidelines required Block Level Officers (BLOs) to visit each home and provide two forms per voter. But ADR said many voters had not met any BLOs and had not signed any forms, yet their submissions were recorded online. 'Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,' it added. ADR also criticised the lack of a clear process for verifying these forms and documents, saying this gave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) excessive powers that could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Why target post-2003 voters? The EC's order says that the 2003 electoral roll is proof of citizenship for voters already registered. For those born after July 1, 1987, the EC asks for proof of citizenship from at least one parent. If the parent appears on the 2003 roll, the child may rely on that. ADR said this distinction was unfair and placed those registered after 2003 at 'a larger risk of disenfranchisement.' It also questioned why the EC had not submitted the 2003 revision order to the Court and asked for it to be produced. In contrast, during the 2004 revision exercise in the North East, only new voters had to submit documents, and that process took over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005). In Bihar, the entire process is being compressed into three months -- from June 25 to September 30. 2025 roll already revised ADR also asked why a fresh revision is needed when the 2025 electoral roll was already updated and published in January this year. The group said the roll is regularly updated to account for deaths, migration, and other changes. ADR also highlighted an August 11, 2023 EC circular to state CEOs, directing them to delete names of electors who had died, moved, or were duplicates. The EC claimed the current SIR was being held in response to concerns raised by political parties. But ADR said, 'not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order'. Instead, parties had raised concerns about fake votes being added, genuine opposition voters being deleted, and irregular voting after polls had closed. Supreme Court's interim observations The case was first heard on July 10 by a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Court did not halt the process, it suggested the EC consider allowing Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, in addition to the 11 listed. The EC was told to submit its affidavit by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. As of Friday, the EC said it had received forms from 72.3 million voters for inclusion in the draft roll. Around 6.5 million names are to be deleted due to death, permanent migration, duplicate entries, or because the voter was untraceable. Further deletions may occur after the draft roll is published. Between August 1 and September 1, those whose names are missing from the draft will be able to file claims and objections.
