Kochi:

In a blow to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, the High Court here on Tuesday cancelled the nominations made by him as Chancellor of Universities to the senate of the University of Kerala and directed him to select fresh nominees within a period of six weeks.

The court, however, did not interfere with the nominations of the state government to the senate of the same university.

While quashing the nominations made by Mr Khan, the court observed that “there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions”.

Justice Mohammed Nias CP said that if a nomination made is contrary to the statutory requirement or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decision, “the nominations will have to be interfered with by the constitutional courts”.

The court said that any arbitrary use of power violates not only the rule of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also the rule of discrimination inbuilt in Article 16.

“An unguided, unfettered and unbridled power is foreign to the exercise of any power, constitutional or statutory. It is trite that even in the exercise of discretionary power, the requirements of reasonableness, rationality, impartiality, fairness and equity are inherent to such exercise and can never be according to any private opinion.

“Under such circumstances, the nominations made (by the Chancellor) are to be interfered with and accordingly, they are quashed,” the court said.

The order came on the two separate pleas by four students of the university challenging the nominations to the senate made by Mr Khan in the categories of Fine Arts, Sports, Humanities and Science.

The petitioners had alleged that the normal procedures were not followed by the Chancellor and persons with no merit, as compared to them, were nominated to the senate.

They also sought directions to the Chancellor to nominate them to the senate.

The court directed Mr Khan to “make fresh nominations considering the claims of the writ petitioners as well” and in tune with the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974.

“This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,” it said allowing the two petitions challenging the Chancellor’s nominations.

The court, in its order, observed that even though no procedure as such was stated in the statute, it compels the persons nominated to be of outstanding academic ability when it comes to Humanities and outstanding ability when it comes to the other three categories.

“The term outstanding ability certainly denotes a superior ability or performance. No credentials of the respondents (nominated students) are shown which makes them superior to the writ petitioners. No single factor of the nominated students is shown superior to the abilities of the writ petitioners.

“True, it is only a nomination and there is an element of discretion involved while making choices. Even for that, eligibility criteria fixed in the statute cannot be forgotten even though it is only a nomination and not a selection,” the court said.

In the third petition challenging the nominations to the senate by the state government, the petitioner had claimed that the nominees did not have any experience in the field of higher education and that they had several crimes registered against them, thus making them ineligible to hold the post of government representatives.

Dismissing the petition, the court said that on examining the credentials of the government representatives, “it is difficult to hold that they are not from the field of higher education”.

It also said that the criminal cases against the nominees were registered “as part of their activities in public life”.

“That apart, they are all cases pending investigation and no court of law has found respondents 4 to 6 (government representatives) guilty of the offences alleged and therefore, mere pendency of cases cannot be treated as a disqualification making respondents 4 to 6 ineligible for nomination.

“Given my findings that they cannot be said to be persons not connected with the field of higher education, I do not find any merit to interfere with the nomination and accordingly the said writ petition is dismissed,” the court said.

The High Court’s decision was welcomed by the ruling Left government in Kerala, and the CPI(M).

State Law Minister P Rajeev said that the Chancellor of Universities cannot be seen as a “sovereign republic”.

CPI(M) State Secretary MV Govindan termed the court decision as a setback for the “political games” of the Governor.

He said that despite the state government submitting a panel of students who excelled in their respective fields, Mr Khan, in alleged violation of the norms, nominated Sangh Parivar members to the senate for political reasons.

Mr Govindan contended the court’s order makes it clear that the government’s approach in the field of higher education is correct and that of the Governor was wrong.

The CPI(M) state secretary said that the order also exposed the Sangh Parivar’s alleged interventions using the Governor to create a crisis in the state and it was also a blow to the UDF and BJP leadership that supported Mr Khan’s actions and stood against the government.

He said the verdict would also affect the alleged wrongful nominations made by Mr Khan in other universities.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Kerala Government has moved the Supreme Court against Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s decision to reserve seven bills for the assent of President Droupadi Murmu stating that his conduct is “manifestly arbitrary.”

In the petition, the Kerala Government has sought to declare the act of the Governor of Kerala in reserving the seven bills –University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021; the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2022; The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2022; and The University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022 for the consideration of the President was illegal and lacks in bona fides.

“The conduct of the Governor in keeping Bills pending for long and indefinite periods, and thereafter reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President without any reasons relatable to the Constitution is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Equally, the aid and advice rendered by the Union of India to the President to withhold assent from the four bills which are wholly within the domain of the State, while disclosing no reason whatsoever, is also manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution,” the Kerala government said.

“Additionally, the actions impugned defeat the rights of the people of the State of Kerala under Article 21 of the Constitution, by denying them the benefits of welfare legislation enacted by the State Assembly,” it added.

In the petition filed through advocate CK Sasi, the Kerala Government said that the matter relates to the acts of the Governor of Kerala, in referring the seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President of India, though not one among them relates to Centre-state relations.

“These 7 bills had been pending with the Governor for as long as about two years. The action of the Governor in keeping the bills pending for as long as two years has subverted the functioning of the legislature of the State and rendered its existence itself ineffective and otiose. The bills include public interest bills which are for the public good and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them ‘as soon as possible’ as required by the proviso to Article 200,” Kerala Government said.

The state government called the act unconstitutional, ex-facie illegal, lacking in bona fides, in violation of the federal structure of our Constitution, and manifestly arbitrary.

The state government submitted that the governor has often been addressing the media and making public criticisms against the state government and the chief minister, in particular, and whether the reservation for the President is as a result of this or not, to refer Bills which have been pending before the governor for as long as two years to the President is a grave injustice to the post that the governor holds and to his constitutional duties as well.

“One can only say that at no cost was the Governor prepared to allow the Government of Kerala and the State Legislative Assembly to function by the Constitution and the laws,” the state government said.

Earlier, the Kerala government had approached the top court over the governor’s inaction over pending bills.

The top court then took strong exception to the governor’s action and also observed that the Kerala governor, after the institution of these proceedings, had exercised power by granting assent to one bill sent by the state government and seven bills have been reserved for consideration of the President.

The top court then reiterated its judgement on the Punjab government and said that the power of the governor cannot be utilised to pause the law-making exercise of the legislature.

That time, the Kerala government filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Governor Arif Mohammed Khan for inaction on his part regarding eight Bills passed by the state legislature and presented to him for his assent under Article 200 of the Constitution.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)