New Delhi:
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has issued a stern warning to Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the ruling DMK government to resolve their longstanding dispute over the appointment of vice-chancellors for state-run universities. This warning comes amidst a broader and increasingly contentious political rift between the state government and the Governor, which has far-reaching implications for the state’s development and governance.
The conflict centers around Governor Ravi’s insistence on appointing vice-chancellors as the honorary chancellor of state-run universities, a move vehemently opposed by the DMK government. The state government has accused the Governor of deliberately delaying the clearance of bills aimed at limiting his powers in these appointments, thereby undermining the state’s development.
The Dispute Unfolds
The Supreme Court’s warning was delivered during a hearing where the court emphasized that the dispute must be resolved by the next hearing date. The Governor’s decision to set up a committee to name vice-chancellors for universities such as the University of Madras, Bharathiar University, and the Tamil Nadu Teachers Training University was termed “illegal” by the state government. In response, the state reconstituted the committee, removing members from the University Grants Commission, a statutory body under the Union Education Ministry.
Governor Ravi later withdrew the search committees he had set up, but the issue remains unresolved. The DMK has moved the court seeking directions to the Governor to clear several pending bills, including those passed by the previous All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led government. The party alleges that Governor Ravi, appointed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, has been delaying these bills, thereby scuttling the state’s development.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The Supreme Court has raised critical questions about the Governor’s authority to withhold assent on bills without sending them back to the Assembly. According to Article 200 of the Constitution, a Governor has only three options: to clear the bills, withhold assent, or send them to the President. The court’s inquiry into this matter highlights the constitutional complexities involved in the dispute.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Governor Ravi, argued that the Governor is not merely a technical supervisor but has a significant role in the legislative process. This argument underscores the broader debate about the powers and responsibilities of Governors in state governance.
Broader Political Context
The dispute also involves the Governor’s powers to appoint personnel to the state’s Public Service Commission, further exacerbating the tensions between the Governor and the state government. The Supreme Court is also hearing similar pleas from Punjab and Kerala, which are ruled by parties opposed to the BJP, indicating a broader national context to these state-level disputes.
As the standoff continues, the Supreme Court’s intervention is seen as a critical step towards resolving the impasse and ensuring that the governance of Tamil Nadu is not further hindered by this ongoing conflict.
Trending
- Inside PM Modi-Trump Meet: 5th Gen Jets, 26/11 Extradition, ‘Mission 500’
- PM Modi, Trump’s Big Nuclear Push To Get More Atomic Reactors To India
- India to Acquire F-35 Stealth Fighters in Landmark US Deal
- ‘Never Forget Their Sacrifice’: PM Modi, Leaders Remember ‘Courageous Heroes’ Of 2019 Pulwama Attack
- No Free Streaming Of IPL Matches From 2025, New Subscription Model To Be Introduced: Report
- ICC Announces Mind-Boggling Prize Money For Champions Trophy.
- Don Bosco Oratory Fatorda Dominates USC Seraulim to Reach Finals
- GIM’s ‘NEXUS 2025’ to Spotlight Top Marketing Trends, Innovators, Emerging Talent And Women Leaders