Kerala CM rejects Governor's allegations of interference in Kannur University VC reappointment
Palakkad (Ker) (PTI): Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday rejected Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's claims that the government interfered with the re-appointment of Kannur University's Vice Chancellor.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court criticised Khan's order reappointing Gopinath Ravindran, stating that the Governor had previously "abdicated or surrendered" his statutory powers for reappointing the VC.
The court, while quashing the reappointment, also criticised the Left government for its "unwarranted intervention" in the matter.
Talking to media in Shoranur in this north Kerala district, Vijayan dismissed news reports suggesting that the Supreme Court's verdict was a setback for the Kerala government, and termed them baseless.
He clarified that the apex court had affirmed that due process was followed in the reappointment. Despite this, the governor continued to claim in the media that there was external pressure, Vijayan added.
"The letter written by the ex-officio pro-chancellor -- the higher education minister -- was considered as unwarranted intervention of the state government. How can a correspondence between two authorities under the same law be considered external pressure," Vijayan asked, rejecting the governor's claim.
He said the apex court dealt with three legal issues, the first being whether re-appointment is permissible in a "tenure post", to which the court said yes.
"It held that the outer age limit of 60 years, provided for under the 1996 Act of the University, will not apply in case of the reappointment of a VC.
The apex court also said it was not necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the 1996 Act for the purpose of reappointment," Vijayan said.
The Chief Minister claimed that the legal advice from the Advocate General was received by the higher education minister's office and handed over to Raj Bhavan.
"The chancellor sought clarification, and the CM's office gave it to the governor. He considers it external interference," Vijayan said.
He reiterated that the state government has not interfered in the authority of the Governor as Chancellor in any way.
Soon after the verdict was pronounced on Thursday, Khan had blamed Chief Minister Vijayan for having pressured him to reappoint the VC.
Speaking to reporters in Thiruvananthapuram, Khan also said that Minister R Bindu was not to be blamed, as the CM had used her to seek the reappointment of Ravindran.
The apex court had also said it is the Chancellor who is conferred with competence under law to appoint or reappoint VCs. "No other person, even the pro-chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority," it had held.
Following the verdict, Khan said that a person claiming to be the personal law advisor of the CM had visited him along with Vijayan's OSD (Officer on Special Duty) and urged him not to follow the normal process of appointing the VC of Kannur University at the time.
He had further claimed that the two had later come with a letter from Higher Education Minister Bindu and a legal opinion of the Advocate General of Kerala for "scuttling" the regular appointment process and reappointing Ravindran as VC.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court had on February 23 last year dismissed an appeal against a single-judge order upholding the reappointment of Ravindran, saying it was done in accordance with the law and that he was not "a usurper of the post".
The top court set aside the impugned judgment and the order passed by the high court dated February 23, 2022 and, as a consequence, the notification dated November 23, 2021 reappointing Ravindran as vice chancellor of Kannur University was also set aside.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
