Higher education case: Supreme Court warns chief secretaries of ‘heavy personal cost’ for filing ‘formality’ affidavits

The court had appointed officers Dr R M Sharma and former IPS officer Ashok Prasad to assist in monitoring. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 18.

Major gaps in state responses

• During the hearing, Dr R M Sharma handed over a consolidated table detailing issue-wise compliance by states and UTs, along with a separate note concerning one of the issues under examination.
• Advocate Charu Mathur appeared for the petitioners.
• After examining the documents, the Supreme Court bench recorded that several states and Union territories had either failed to answer many of the issues raised by the court or had furnished incomplete responses on most points.
• The affidavits had been personally affirmed by chief secretaries, while in some cases senior departmental secretaries had filed them with the court’s permission.
• The Supreme Court directed that copies of the consolidated documents be supplied to all states, UTs, and the central government through the Ministry of Education so that responses could be filed within two weeks.
• The bench, however, cautioned that leniency may be shown only if the defects pointed out in the affidavits are rectified before the next hearing and comprehensive fresh affidavits are submitted.

Education ministry faces contempt warning

• The hearing focused on the Centre’s alleged failure to comply with an earlier order directing that Dr Sharma be provided a competent English stenographer.
• The Supreme Court pulled up the Union Education Ministry over non-compliance with its earlier direction to provide a competent English stenographer to a court-appointed officer, observing that the Secretary of the Department of Higher Education was “tentatively” in contempt.
• The court noted that despite its April 20 direction, no suitable stenographer had been assigned to assist Dr Sharma.
• According to the order, an earlier stenographer provided to him was “not up to the mark” and could neither properly take dictation nor type in English.
• Additional Solicitor General S D Sanjay, appearing for the Union government and the Ministry of Education, informed the court that the order had been communicated and ought to have been complied with.
• Recording its displeasure, the bench observed that the secretary, Department of Higher Education, Union Ministry of Education, is in contempt.
• The Supreme Court consequently directed the secretary to remain personally present on the next date of hearing to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
• It further warned that if the direction was not complied with “both in letter and spirit” by May 5, the court “may not show any leniency”.

Technical difficulties raised by states

The hearing also saw lawyers representing some states raise concerns over technical difficulties in accessing pleadings and court files through the Supreme Court’s online portal.

Taking note of the issue, the bench directed counsel facing such problems to appear before the court registry on May 5 and May 6 at 4.15 pm, where a competent officer would be deputed to resolve the technical glitches.

The court additionally clarified that if states failed to collect copies of the consolidated compliance documents on the dates specified, they would later be barred from contending that they were unaware of the contents of those reports.

Interim honorarium

In another direction, the bench ordered the Ministry of Education to transfer an interim amount of Rs 4 lakh to Dr R M Sharma for distribution among his team assisting the court in the ongoing exercise. The amount was described as an interim honorarium.

The order also recorded that the petitioner, who appeared in person after the hearing, was permitted to communicate confidential concerns to court-appointed officer Ashok Prasad, with the bench requesting him to hear her out, along with his team.