SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT ON CHANCELLOR’S AUTHORITY IN UNIVERSITY

Print

TAG: GS 2: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court quashed the reappointment notification of Gopinath Ravindran as the vice-chancellor of Kannur University.

EXPLANATION:

• The ruling delineates the distinct roles of the governor, functioning as the chancellor of state-run universities, emphasizing their pivotal authority in university matters.

Case Background and Significance:

• The appeal challenged the Kerala High Court’s decision that upheld the reappointment of Gopinath Ravindran as vice-chancellor of Kannur University.
• The verdict assumes significance amid disputes between state governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala and their respective governors.
• The dispute is regarding the amendments in state university laws, intending to lessen the governor’s involvement in appointing vice-chancellors.

Chancellor’s Role as Not Merely Titular:

• The Supreme Court highlighted the chancellor’s pivotal role, emphasizing that the governor’s position in state-run universities is not merely titular.
• It observed that the chancellor’s opinion holds paramount significance in university affairs and is the ultimate judge in all aspects, not merely a symbolic figurehead.

Critical Observations and Rationale:

• Violation of Statutory Powers:
  • The Supreme Court concluded that the reappointment, despite being legally permissible, was influenced by external considerations, specifically the state government’s unwarranted intervention.
• Governor’s Role and Distinct Authority:
  • The ruling emphasized the chancellor’s role as separate from the state government.
  • It indicated that the governor, in the capacity of the chancellor, acts independently and is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers.
• Legal Considerations and Interpretation:
  • The Court highlighted that the governor’s duties as the chancellor in university matters are distinct from their obligations as the state governor, warranting separate interpretations and actions.

Questions of Law and Court’s Stand:

• The Court deliberated on four legal questions pertaining to the reappointment, differing from the High Court’s stance on certain aspects.
• It agreed that reappointment, though legally acceptable, had been unduly influenced and that the governor’s statutory powers were relinquished, affecting the appointment process adversely.

Clarification on Chancellor’s Authority:

• The apex court clarified that the governor, acting as the ex-officio chancellor of the university, operates independently in university-related decisions, irrespective of political advice or external pressures.
• It highlighted that the legislative distinction between the chancellor and the state government demands a separate interpretation and execution of duties by the governor.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court’s verdict delineates the distinct role of the chancellor, asserting the governor’s authority in university matters as independent and non-advisory.
• The ruling underscores the chancellor’s significance in ensuring fair and unbiased decisions within state-run universities, independent of external political influence.

SOURCE: https://theprint.in/judiciary/as-chancellor-governor-not-merely-titular-head-sc-quashes-kannur-university-v-cs-reappointment/1866172/