HC appoints former SC judge Ramasubramanian as observer for JNUSU elections
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge V Ramasubramanian as an 'observer' to exercise oversight over the activities of the election committee constituted for the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union elections for the 2023-24 academic year.
Dealing with a petition filed by a student, Justice Sachin Datta also asked the grievance redressal cell set up in terms of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations to examine and pass an order on grievances concerning the constitution of the election committee before the declaration of the final result.
"In case it is found that the constitution of the EC (election committee) is not in consonance with the law and/or with the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations (as approved by the Supreme Court), appropriate consequential orders as regards the impugned elections, would also be passed by the grievance redressal cell," Justice Datta said in an order passed on Friday.
"Respective counsel for the parties are also in agreement that in the meantime, for the purpose of the ongoing election process, a retired judge of the Supreme Court be appointed by this court, as the observer to exercise oversight over the activities/functions to be discharged by the election committee. For this purpose, Mr Justice V Ramasubramanian, former judge, Supreme Court of India, is appointed as the observer," the court said.
The JNUSU elections are scheduled to be held on March 22 and results will be declared on March 24.
The petitioner alleged that the procedure adopted for electing the members of the election committee was in complete contravention of the rules.
It was contended that the two students tasked with the responsibility of constituting the committee connived to constitute it with a clear bias towards candidates aligning with their ideological and political stance.
The court stated that it would be apposite if, in the first instance, the petitioner's complaints and grievances were examined by the grievance redressal cell, specifically constituted for the JNUSU elections. The court also gave liberty to the petitioner to approach it.
"In view of the election schedule that is stated to have been notified on 10.03.2024, the grievance redressal cell is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise and pass a reasoned order prior to declaration of the final results," the court ordered.
Petitioner Sakshi, a student of Bachelor of Arts, raised several grievances with respect to the scheduled elections, including the authorisation given to two students -- Aishe Ghosh and Md Danish -- to conduct the General Body Meeting (GBM) and the formulation of the election committee.
The petition sought a direction to conduct fresh GBMs strictly in accordance with the terms specified in the Lyngdoh Committee Report to ensure the sanctity and trust in the JNUSU elections.
In 2005, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a committee headed by J M Lyngdoh, former chief election commissioner of India, with the intent to ensure fairness and transparency in holding elections to the students' unions in various universities across the country. The committee had made various recommendations in this regard.
The apex court adopted the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, making them mandatory for universities.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
