Thiruvananthapuram: The ruling Left Democratic Entrance in Kerala is in contact with political events in different states to mobilise them on the Supreme Courtroom October judgment that appointments of vice-chancellors in state universities should abide by College Grants Fee (UGC) pointers, Okayerala’s Legislation Minister P. Rajeev informed ThePrint.
The Pinarayi Vijayan authorities has additionally determined to legally problem courtroom orders quashing vice-chancellor appointments for violating UGC norms, the minister mentioned in an interview with ThePrint.
Rajeev was referring to the Supreme Courtroom’s October verdict that quashed the appointment of Thiruvananthapuram’s APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College vice-chancellor M.S. Rajasree. In its order on 21 October, the courtroom mentioned the appointment contravened UGC laws on appointing vice-chancellors.
Rajeev mentioned UGC pointers are subordinate laws of Parliament and that the Supreme Courtroom’s verdict could possibly be extrapolated to imply that the central authorities may annul any regulation handed by a state on a topic that’s on the Concurrent Checklist.
“The implications of the Supreme Courtroom judgment aren’t confined solely to schooling. UGC pointers are subordinate laws. It’s solely tabled in Parliament and deemed handed if the Parliament doesn’t make any modifications,” he informed ThePrint.
This, Rajeev argues, raises bigger questions of Centre-state relations and the rights of states to make legal guidelines on topics which are on the concurrent record
“It is a very severe subject,” he mentioned. “We’re discussing this with different state governments and making an attempt to mobilise [support],” Rajeev mentioned.
Subordinate laws is a regulation made by any authority aside from a legislature, Rajya Sabha says in its Follow and Process sequence.
Chatting with ThePrint, Rajeev identified that earlier than the October ruling, the authorized place had been completely different.
“Within the Kalyani Mathivanan case of 2015, the SC had held that the UGC pointers are necessary for central universities and directive for state universities. Which means that if the state Act and the UGC laws are contradictory then the previous prevails,” Rajeev mentioned.
The October ruling of the Supreme Courtroom adjustments this place, he mentioned, including it was now as much as the Supreme Courtroom to make clear if the regulation utilized retrospectively.
“The chancellor will not be the authority to resolve that,” Rajeev added.
He was referring to Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan’s directive final month asking vice-chancellors of 9 state universities to resign within the wake of the Supreme Courtroom’s verdict on the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College case.
As a substitute of complying, the vice-chancellors took the case to courtroom, the place its presently being heard.
Rajeev’s remarks additionally come at a time when the Pinarayi Vijayan authorities has really helpful that the governor convene an meeting session from 5 to fifteen December. The transfer has sparked speculations that the federal government would possibly go a Invoice to strip the state governor of his powers because the chancellor of the state.
Additionally Learn: Arif Mohammad Khan vs Pinarayi Vijayan was up for a showdown. Till it turned private
‘Over 100 V-Cs should go if it’s applied retrospectively’
As the controversy over vice-chancellor appointments continued within the state, the Kerala Excessive Courtroom quashed the appointment of Okay. Riji John because the vice-chancellor of Kerala College of Fisheries and Ocean Research.
John was one of many V-Cs whose resignation Khan had ordered.
Rajeev informed ThePrint that the choice impinges on the “state’s proper to legislate”.
“We’re making an attempt to get that modified. The vice-chancellor is submitting a evaluation petition, however the state authorities, too, is more likely to be a celebration as a result of it has different implications and encroaches on the state’s proper to legislate,” Rajeev mentioned.
The governor, he mentioned, is a constitutional authority and the chancellor is a statutory authority.
“The legislative authority has the suitable to resolve who turns into chancellor based mostly on the wants of the day,” he mentioned, including that in keeping with the state Act, the chancellor can take away a vice-chancellor on solely two grounds — monetary misappropriation and for misconduct.
“Even that requires the structure of a fee below a judicial officer based mostly on whose advice the Chancellor must act. There isn’t any provision to expel for another causes,” he mentioned.
If the Supreme Courtroom’s October ruling have been to be utilized retrospectively, over 100 vice-chancellors throughout India would lose their jobs.
“If that is the place then greater than 100 V-Cs must be eliminated. In Rajasthan, the search committee [for V-Cs] has illustration [from] the state authorities. There isn’t any provision for that within the UGC norms. In Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the federal government constitutes a search committee that submits [names] again to the federal government, which then recommends one title to the chancellor,” he mentioned.
“In Gujarat, the state authorities appoints V-Cs not the chancellor and this modification got here into pressure when Narendra Modi was the chief minister of the state. West Bengal has illustration [from] the state authorities within the search committee. All these appointments [will be called into question] if the courtroom holds that the appointments of the V-C of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College void ab initio,” Rajeev informed ThePrint.
‘Governor appointment must be from the underside and never top-down’
On Tuesday, a number of events resembling neighbouring Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Nationalist Congress Social gathering (NCP) joined the ruling LDF in a present of power in entrance of Kerala’s Raj Bhavan. The events have been demanding the abolition of the workplace of the governor.
Rajeev clarified that there was presently no formal motion on that entrance. Nonetheless, he added that the appointment and the function of the governor had been debated in nice element within the Constituent Meeting. “A requirement was made in regards to the governors being elected, and Ambedkar [wondered if anyone would] contest elections for a submit that has no discretionary powers,” Rajeev mentioned.
“The Shamsher Singh case had settled as soon as and for all that the ‘satisfaction’ of the governor is that of the council of ministers and never private satisfaction. However there are additionally a number of suggestions in regards to the mode of appointment. Ideally, it ought to occur from amongst a panel that the states ship to the Centre and never top-down prefer it presently occurs,” Rajeev mentioned.
Within the Shamsher Singh case, the Supreme Courtroom had held in that case that “satisfaction required by the Structure will not be private satisfaction of the President or of the Governor however the satisfaction of the President or of the Governor within the Constitutional sense below the Cupboard system of presidency”.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Additionally Learn AMU days to quarrelling with Pinarayi, how Arif Mohammed Khan’s story has come full circle