Mangalore University Syndicate member writes to VC; demands enquiry in corruption case
University prof. had paid bribe to history sheeter who promised him VC’s job
Mangaluru: Prominent advocate of Mangaluru and owner of Paniyala Associates Vivekananda Paniyala has written to Mangalore University’s Vice Chancellor requesting him to institute enquiry into the incident of one of the Professors of the University who has filed a complaint in local Police station alleging that he has Paid bribe to an accused who Promised to elevate him as the VC of Raichur University.
Professor in Microbiology at Mangalore University M. Jayashankar had earlier this week lodged complaint at kankanady Police Station against Ramsena’s state chief Prasad who allegedly Promised him to elevate as Raichur University’s VC in exchange of money.
In the letter Vivekananda has claimed that the incident prima facie appears indulging in corrupt practice of offering illegal gratification amounting to misconduct.
Professor in Microbiology Mr. M. Jayashankar, who is also the Director of College Development Council has lodged a complaint with the police alleging that the accused person namely one Prasad has cheated him by promising to get the post of VC of Raichur University and as part of the same, M. Jayashankar has paid Rs. 17 lakhs in cash and also issued 3 blank cheques in all for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. This is shocking to the conscience of the Syndicate members, the letter stated.
“The entire incident as narrated in the complaint and as reported in the media smacks of malafides and corrupt practice of payment of illegal gratification. This conduct is unbecoming of a professor of a university” Vivekananda wrote in the letter.
“Undoubtedly, this is an act of moral turpitude lowering the dignity and reputation of the university itself, of which I am part by being member of the Syndicate. While the police are going to investigate into the criminal aspect of the offence, the University being the employer and appointing authority constituted under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, is required to take serious cognizance of this shocking incident and seek explanation from Mr. M. Jayashankar forthwith as a prelude before initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings from the point of misconduct as the issue is much deeper and larger warranting appropriate action proactively in the larger interest of the public” it further added.
“Since the matter is of grave concern and the public at large are deeply anguished by this unethical practice of engaging touts for securing the posts of Vice Chancellor, I request you to call for an emergency special Syndicate meeting of Mangalore University. Since the Syndicate is the important authority of the University under Section 27(a) and 29 of the K.S.U. Act, 2000, it is imperative that proper queries are framed before seeking legal opinion” it urged the VC.
“In the above context, I am specifically pointing out this aspect in view of the fact that some of the “legal opinions” obtained by the University recently have failed to address the core issues due to the fact that the queries are not framed properly leading to vague and unprofessional opinions by the Advocates of Mangalore University. This has derailed many burning issues as opinions of the Advocates are mixed with their personal views rather than purely professional opinions based on facts, circumstances, materials and principles of law.
“In light of the above, I request you to first secure a copy of the complaint and FIR along with an explanation from Prof. Jayashankar and place the same before the Syndicate for appropriate decision thereon as this requires wider consultation and deliberation by taking all the Syndicate members into confidence. Let the Syndicate pass a suitable resolution covering all aspects and accordingly institute an enquiry by a Committee headed by a retired Judge of Hon'ble High Court. I hope that you will treat this request in its proper perspective and do the needful” Vivekananda wrote while concluding the letter.
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.
