When clash erupted between T.N. government and Governor on appointing a Vice-Chancellor 40 years ago
Around a dozen State universities in Tamil Nadu currently do not have Vice-Chancellors, as Tamil Nadu remains embroiled in a legal tussle over shifting the authority to appoint them, from the Governor (in his capacity as Chancellor) to the State government. Interestingly, it is not the first time Tamil Nadu has witnessed a disagreement between the government and the Governor on this issue. A conflict took place four decades ago over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University.
In 1985, during M.G. Ramachandran's tenure as Chief Minister, tensions simmered over Governor S.L. Khurana's use of his authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors. That March, Education Minister C. Aranganayagam remarked that difficulties in appointing Vice-Chancellors 'seemed peculiar to States where non-Congress (I) governments were in office.' His comment came just months after the AIADMK-Congress (I) alliance swept to power in Tamil Nadu in the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination.
Referring to similar controversies in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, Aranganayagam observed, according to The Hindu, that Governors in Congress (I)-ruled states appeared to have no issue accepting recommendations from the State government. 'This problem arose only in non-Congress (I) governed States,' he said.
In the Assembly, Aranganayagam argued it would be better to vest the power to oversee universities in State governments rather than with the Governor or the Central government.
Against this backdrop, in October 1985, Governor Khurana appointed S. Krishnaswamy, a well-regarded biologist, as Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The appointment caught the State government by surprise. Aranganayagam said the government had recommended C.A. Perumal, Head of the Political Science Department at University of Madras, for the post. He stated: 'The practice so far has been that the Governor consults the Chief Minister before making the appointment; in this case, the Chief Minister was not consulted. Therefore, with the Chief Minister's consent, the advice to the Governor is being forwarded. We have nothing against Dr. Krishnaswamy personally.'
When asked whether the government had officially conveyed its preference to the Governor, Aranganayagam admitted that he had only informally suggested Perumal's name, but insisted the Governor ought to have consulted the Chief Minister before finalising the appointment.
Later that evening, the Raj Bhavan issued a statement expressing surprise at the Minister's remarks. It emphasised that this was not the first time the Governor had appointed a Vice-Chancellor without direct consultation, noting that he had made similar decisions at least six times in the previous three years. The Governor's office stated that the process had been consistent and that in some instances — such as appointments to Madras and Bharathidasan Universities — he had disagreed with the Education Minister's recommendations and independently made the final call. The Governor's position, it said, was to choose the best candidate from the panel submitted.
The Raj Bhavan also cited Section 11 of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act to support the legality of Krishnaswamy's appointment.
Aranganayagam countered this by invoking Article 163(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that the Governor act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He argued that since the Governor holds the post of Chancellor by virtue of being Governor, he cannot wield more power in the Chancellor's role than he does as Governor.
He also denied that the appointment followed past practice. 'In all previous cases, the Governor appointed Vice-Chancellors only after consulting the Chief Minister and obtaining his concurrence; in this case, he has not done so,' he said. Aranganayagam added that the issue was not about the individual selected, but about the principle of who holds the appointing authority. Aranganayam felt persons belonging to the state were better equipped than 'others coming from outside' to select the appropriate person for a post.
However, just a few hours later, the State government issued an official release, stating: 'It is most unfortunate that an unnecessary controversy has arisen over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The Government, after careful consideration, holds that the appointment of Dr. S. Krishnaswamy by the Governor-Chancellor is valid and on merit. The Governor's decision is being implemented by the Government.'
The Hindu reported: 'What happened between the Education Minister's assertion in the morning and the issue of the press release in the evening (putting an end to the controversy) is not quite clear. It is, however, learnt that, on behalf of the Chief Minister, an emissary (one of his Cabinet colleagues) called on the Governor at the Raj Bhavan in the afternoon and sorted out the matter.'
Krishnaswamy later assumed charge as Vice-Chancellor. He told journalists he was pleased that the Education Minister had clarified, 'We have nothing against Prof. Krishnaswamy personally.'
Incidentally, then Finance Minister V.R. Nedunchezhiyan welcomed the appointment, saying, 'I am happy that an internationally-known scientist has been chosen for the position.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
34 minutes ago
- NDTV
Iran's Nuclear Site At Fordow Significantly Damaged: IAEA Chief
Vienna: US bombing probably caused "very significant" damage to the underground areas of Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment plant dug into a mountain, though no one can yet tell the extent, UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said on Monday. The United States dropped the biggest conventional bombs in its arsenal on Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday, using those bunker-busting munitions in combat for the first time to try and eliminate sites including the Fordow uranium-enrichment plant dug into a mountain. "At this time, no one, including the IAEA is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordow," Grossi said in a statement to an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation Board of Governors. The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections in Iran since Israel started its military strikes on nuclear facilities there on June 13. "Given the explosive payload utilised and the extreme(ly) vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred," Grossi added. Beyond the level of damage done to Fordow's underground enrichment halls, one of the biggest open questions is the status of its stock of enriched uranium, particularly its more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from the roughly 90% that is weapons grade. That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick, though Iran says its intentions are peaceful and it does not seek atom bombs. Iran did, however, inform the IAEA on June 13 that it would take "special measures" to protect its nuclear materials and equipment that are under so-called IAEA safeguards, the oversight provided for by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Grossi said.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
No basis for aggression: Putin hosts Iran Foreign Minister, condemns US strikes
Russian President Vladimir Putin met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Moscow amid the ongoing conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Putin, reiterating Russia's stand on the attack on Iran, said Iran has been attacked without added that the Iranian people will decide to change the regime, not any other country as the US repeatedly asked Iran to surrender. Putin also lashed out at the US and said Russia deeply regrets and condemns the US strikes on Iranian nuclear also said that Russia is ready to help the Iranian people. "Dear Mr. Minister, I am very glad to see you. You are visiting Russia at a difficult time, at a time of sharp aggravation of the situation in the region and around your country," Putin has extended support to Iran and openly condemned US strikes on its nuclear sites. Speaking on the same, Putin reiterated that there is no justification for the "aggression provoked against Iran"."Our position on the current events is well known. It is clearly stated, articulated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Russia and, you know, the opposition that we have taken in the Security Council of the United Nations. The aggression provoked against Iran has absolutely no basis and no justification. We have long-standing good, reliable relations with Iran. We, for our part, are making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people," Putin Iranian minister thanked Russia for its stand in condemning the assault."We appreciate Russia's stance in condemning this assault. The attack carried out by the United States is, first and foremost, an attack on the UN Charter, as it is entirely in violation of it," he said."It is an attack on international law, an attack on legal norms and frameworks, and most importantly, an attack on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the non-proliferation regime as a whole,' he Saturday's US strikes, Russia had warned that US military intervention could destabilise the entire region and plunge it into the "abyss".Asked what Russia was ready to do to help Tehran, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, "It all depends on what Iran needs". He said the fact that Moscow had offered to mediate in the crisis was itself a form of condemned the US attacks."An increase in the number of participants in this conflict is happening - or rather, has happened. A new spiral of escalation of tension in the region. And, of course, we condemn this and express regret in this regard, deep regret. In addition, of course, it remains to be seen what happened to (Iran's) nuclear facilities, whether there is a radiation hazard," he told reporters.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Nilambur bypoll defeat: Did Pinarayi's party underplay PV Anvar factor?
Kerala's Nilambur electing Congress candidate Aryadan Shoukath in the June 19 bypoll serves as a warning for chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, whose government heads for assembly elections next year with a two-term wrested Nilambur, located in Malappuram district, from the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) by a convincing margin of around 11,360 votes. The previous MLA from the seat, P.V. Anvar, who had challenged the Vijayan government by contesting as an Independent, received over 19,000 had resigned as MLA in January after facing the heat for alleging that additional DGP (director general of police) M.R. Ajithkumar was involved in gold smuggling. Ajithkumar is widely considered as an officer enjoying the trust of the Vijayan CPI(M) had fielded M. Swaraj, a youth leader with clean image. As runner-up, he polled around 66,660 votes. The loss of Nilambur reduces the LDF's strength in the legislative assembly to 98, but more importantly, it gives the Congress-led Opposition UDF (United Democratic Front) a psychological advantage in the run-up to the state polls.'We won Nilambur by a convincing margin. I thank the people for supporting me against a corrupt government that had sponsored wrongful practices to defeat me,' Shoukath told INDIA Congress is in a jubilant mood. The counting of votes on June 23 revealed the UDF had maintained lead in Nilambur municipality, governed by the CPI(M), and six other panchayats, except Kurulayi. The LDF candidate trailed in his home ground of Pothukallu by 425 votes. Even in Nilambur municipality, the performance of Swaraj was used to be a Congress stronghold, with Shoukath's father Aryadan Muhammed holding the seat uninterrupted for almost 30 years since 1987. He had also held the seat from 1977 to 1980. Anvar snatched the seat for the LDF in 2016 and retained it in many locals, Shoukath's victory indicates a build-up against the Vijayan government. 'The Nilambur bypoll verdict should be an eye-opener for the chief minister, who campaigned in the constituency for five days and showcased his governance. His campaign attracted huge crowds, but not the votes,' said Faizal Ahmed, a businessman from the LDF had underestimated the Anvar factor and failed to neutralise his clout among their cadre. A win under its belt, the UDF will now be going into the local body polls scheduled in December with added confidence. 'We had taken a position that the Pinarayi Vijayan government must go, and the people voted for us. We will not allow the government to continue with its undemocratic activities,' said the Congress's V.D. Satheesan, who is leader of the to India Today Magazine- End
