© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Kerala government has not supported the petitions of the VCs of eight universities in the state, who had moved the high court challenging the directive of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan to submit their resignations. This is in sharp contrast to the stand of the ruling CPI(M) that the government would explore all measures—legal as well as administrative—to ensure that the Governor acts as per the Constitution.
On Monday, the Kerala High Court had a special sitting to hear the petitions of the VCs, who were told on Sunday to tender their resignations immediately. The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran, in an interim order, allowed the petitions and set aside the directive of the Governor. The Governor had sought the resignation of nine VCs, but only eight moved the high court. The VC of Kerala Technological University did not challenge the Governor’s directive.
In the verdict, which was uploaded on the high court website on Thursday, it was recorded that “Asok M Cherian, Additional Advocate General, interestingly, submitted that the state does not and does not intend to take sides with either the Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellors. The Government will abide by the directions to be issued by this Court.”
When the Governor—the Chancellor of all state universities—had demanded the resignation of the VCs, relying upon last Friday’s Supreme Court verdict that nullified the appointment of the VC of Kerala Technological University, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had stated that the Governor would not be allowed to cross limits, and that he was acting as a tool of the RSS.
In his verdict, Justice Ramachandran said: “Prima facie, this court has reservations regarding the impugned communications (the directive to VCs to tender their resignation), issued by the Chancellor, because: for the first, it asks the VCs to tender their resignations, and that too within the shortest period possible; and, for the second, it declares that they have ceased to be the VCs with effect from October 21 (the day of the SC verdict). I do not require to expatiate, nor do I need to rely on any precedents, to declare that no one can be legally forced to tender resignation.”
Referring to the argument of advocate Jaju Babu, who appeared for the Governor, that the Chancellor was only offering an advice to save the VCs from the fate of being removed from office ab initio, the high court said, “Obviously, this court cannot grant imprimatur to any such advice, and for that reason alone, the impugned communications will have to fail.”
The court added that the Chancellor’s declaration that the VCs have ceased to be in office since October 21 was made without following due procedure.
