Some PG classes to be discontinued: Mangalore University Vice-Chancellor P.L. Dharma
Mangaluru: Mangalore University will discontinue some postgraduate (PG) classes in its constituent colleges from the next academic year, Vice-Chancellor Prof. P.L. Dharma has announced.
Speaking to the media, he stated that due to a shortage of experienced faculty, it has become difficult to continue certain PG classes. As a result, these classes will be discontinued, and students must directly apply to Mangalore University instead of its constituent colleges.
Challenges in managing constituent colleges
The university currently manages four constituent colleges—Sandhya College, Mangalagangotri, Bannadka, and Nelyadi. However, maintaining these colleges has become challenging due to a shortage of permanent lecturers. While guest lecturers have been handling classes efficiently, the need for experienced senior faculty remains. The university has requested the government to convert these constituent colleges into government colleges.
Plan to utilise unused international hostel building
The university is considering using the unused international hostel building within its campus through public-private partnerships. With several private medical and engineering colleges in the city, discussions are underway to explore the possibility of allocating the building for their use after obtaining government approval.
Pending contractor payments
The university owes approximately ₹40 crore to contractors for various construction projects, including the hostel building. Due to financial constraints, payments will be made in phases, the vice-chancellor said.
Dispute over panchayat tax
Responding to a query about unpaid taxes to the local gram panchayat, Prof. Dharma stated that the Vishwamangala Trust, located within the university campus, has also been taxed. Since the trust operates independently of the university, discussions are ongoing with panchayat officials to exempt the international hostel and another unused building from taxation. Once a resolution is reached, pending taxes will be paid in installments.
Mangalore University secures 13 patents
The university has obtained 13 patents and aims to enhance its focus on continuous education, examinations, and research, the vice-chancellor added.
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.
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
