Latest news with #V.Lakshminarayanan
The Hindu
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Amid NEP row, Madras HC tells Centre to consider paying RTE funds to T.N. by delinking it from Samagra Shiksha
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) directed the Union Ministry of Education to consider splitting the disbursal of funds to the Tamil Nadu government under its flagship Samagra Shiksha scheme, so that money needed to reimburse private schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act can be disbursed. The RTE component amounts to about ₹200 crore, while the total amount pending to Tamil Nadu under the SSS amounts to ₹2,151.59 crore, amidst a row over the State's refusal to implement the National Education Policy, 2020. The court also told the State government that non-receipt of funds from the Centre cannot be used as a 'reason to wriggle out' of its own obligation to pay the private schools. Concurrent responsibility A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan noted that the Centre had some issues in releasing SSS funds as the State government has not adopted the NEP. However, it has an independent obligation under the RTE Act of 2009, which has nothing to do with non-adoption of NEP, the judges said. 'Section 7 of the RTE Act states that the Central government and the State governments have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act... Therefore, funds payable to the State Government representing the Central Government's share towards discharging the RTE obligations need not be linked to NEP 2020,' the Division Bench observed. Since the Tamil Nadu government had already filed a civil suit before the Supreme Court demanding release of SSS funds of ₹2,151.59 crore, the judges said: 'We are not in a position to issue any binding direction in this regard,' and stopped with issuing a direction to the Centre to merely 'consider' delinking the RTE component from the SSS funds and disbursing the amount accordingly. T.N. cannot 'wiggle out' On the other hand, taking note of various judicial precedents, the Division Bench directed the State government to reimburse the private schools which make admissions under the RTE Act. 'The State government has an obligation to reimburse private unaided schools. Non-receipt of funds from the Union Government cannot be cited as a reason to wriggle out of this statutory obligation,' the court observed. The orders were passed while disposing of a public interest litigation petition which sought a direction to the State government to commence the RTE admissions for the academic year 2025-26 without any delay. Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran told the court that the State government was unable to reimburse the private schools on time due to non-receipt of Central funds. He said the ₹188.99 crore expenditure towards RTE reimbursement for the year 2022-23 was borne in entirety by the State government. In view of such complaints, the judges suo motu impleaded the Union Ministry of Education as one of the respondents to the case and requested Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.R.L. Sundaresan to obtain necessary instructions. RTE obligations The ASG told the court that SSS was an integrated scheme that envisages education as a continuum from pre-school to Class 12, and that the scheme was aligned with the provisions of NEP 2020. Since the Tamil Nadu government had not agreed to implement NEP 2020, there were issues regarding the disbursement of funds. He also said that it was the primary responsibility of the State government to implement the RTE Act. Disagreeing with him, the judges said that both the Centre as well as the State governments were obligated to implement the Act. Authoring the judgement, Justice Swaminathan quoted former Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren, saying: 'Today, education is perhaps the most important function of the state... It is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of education.'
The Hindu
26-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Retailers seek time to display Tamil nameboards; Madras High Court directs Chennai Corporation to consider plea
The Madras High Court has directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to consider a representation made by an association of retailers to grant them more time to comply with the legal mandate to display nameboards in Tamil, followed by English and then any other language. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan disposed of a writ petition filed by the Retailers Association of India (RAI) by directing the civic body to consider its March 21, 2025, representation, seeking extension of time, within four weeks and not to take any coercive action against the retailers until then. The petitioner's counsel Vijayan Subramanian told the court that the retailers were forced to approach the court as there was a threat of them being penalised under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act of 1947 if they do not display Tamil nameboards by May 30, 2025. Stating that most retailers had put up signage boards using certain fonts and colours to distinguish their brand from others, the petitioner association said it would take significant amount of money, time, and energy to either replace the boards or put up new boards with Tamil names. Though the members of the association were willing to comply with the legal requirement of displaying their nameboards in Tamil prominently, they would require the grant of a reasonable amount of time to do so, in view of the financial constraints and other problems in ensuring immediate compliance, the petitioner said. The association feared that the corporation officials might begin issuing show cause notices and imposing fines ranging from ₹500 to ₹2,000 on hoteliers and retail shops that fail to display their nameboards in Tamil prominently.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Misplaced urgency: On the Madras High Court interim order
By staying the operation of Tamil Nadu's multiple amended Acts — to the extent that they empower the government to appoint Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) of 18 State universities — the Madras High Court has effectively halted the momentum that followed last month's landmark Supreme Court verdict, which granted deemed assent to 10 Bills on which the Tamil Nadu Governor had inordinately delayed action. The interim order, delivered by Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, effectively restores to the Governor-Chancellor, the powers of appointing V-Cs, which those very Bills had sought to divest. The result is a continuing stalemate: nearly a dozen universities remain headless, with appointments frozen until further judicial intervention. The Vacation Bench, acting on a petition by a lawyer, held that interim relief was justified because the impugned Acts 'fall foul of the law' laid down by the Supreme Court in prior rulings on V-C appointments. These include Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University) and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs The State Of Gujarat (Sardar Patel University). In both cases, the appointment of V-Cs was quashed for violating Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which govern the composition of search committees and procedures for V-C appointments. The High Court rejected the State's argument that it had adopted the UGC Regulations in 2021 with a caveat excluding Regulation 7.3. The judges held that stripping the Chancellor of appointment powers was plainly unconstitutional — '... is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes,' they wrote. What is equally glaring, however, is the misplaced urgency with which the Bench moved to deprive the amended Acts of legal effect. The High Court overlooked the Higher Education Department counsel's submission that the State had mentioned before the Supreme Court seeking urgent listing of a petition to transfer the instant case to itself; and that the Supreme Court had indicated that the High Court may be apprised of this fact. Judicial propriety would suggest that a lower court must exercise restraint in such cases. Moreover, the interim order was passed without affording the State adequate time to file its counter affidavit. In any case, while the current impasse on V-C appointments in Tamil Nadu persists, given the conflicting case precedents — Kalyani Mathivanan and Jagdish Prasad Sharma among them — the Supreme Court, should it hear the case, must settle, once and for all, the critical question: can UGC Regulations issued by a subordinate authority override State legislation enacted under constitutional authority?
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court stays amendments taking away T.N. Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (May 21, 2025) stayed the operation of a series of amendments carried out by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to make the State government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for Vice-Chancellors of various State-run universities. A summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay pursuant to a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli to declare all the amendment Acts as null and void. The orders were passed after hearing senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, assisted by V.R. Shanmuganathan, for the petitioner and Advocate-General P.S. Raman as well as Senior Counsel P. Wilson representing the Chief Secretary and Higher Education Secretary respectively. Initially, the A-G as well as Mr. Wilson urged the court to grant time for filing a counter affidavit and contended that there was absolutely no urgency in taking up the stay petition for hearing during the summer vacation hearing. However, the Bench rejected their request. The Division Bench was also informed that the State government had already filed a petition before the Supreme Court urging it to transfer the PIL petition, pending before the High Court, to itself and hear it along with connected cases already pending before the top court. Higher Education Secretary C. Samayamoorthy too filed a memo before the High Court contending that the PIL petition was politically motivated as it had been filed by a person who was the Tirunelveli district secretary of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and an advocate by profession. Though the petitioner had challenged the State laws on 56 grounds, his primary contention was that the laws were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. Stating the validity of Regulation 7.3 was in itself a subject matter of the litigations pending before the Supreme Court for quite sometime now, the Secretary said it would only be appropriate to transfer the present PIL petition to the top court and tag it along with the cases pending there. The memo also stated that a mention was made before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on May 19, 2025, seeking early listing of the transfer petition and that the CJI had orally asked the counsel for the State government to inform the High Court about the transfer petition. The Higher Education Secretary further stated there was no grave urgency involved in the case for the High Court to hear the matter during summer vacation, without providing sufficient time for the State government to file a detailed counter affidavit, meeting out all 56 grounds. He urged the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan to defer the hearing on the PIL petition until the disposal of the transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court.
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Tamil Nadu government moves Supreme Court to transfer PIL against laws taking away Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors
The Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday (May 21, 2025) informed the Madras High Court of having filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to transfer to the latter a public interest litigation (PIL) petition currently pending before the High Court, challenging the validity of State laws that take away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors. Appearing before a summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department, said the transfer petition had been filed in view of connected cases, pending before the top court. Higher Education Secretary C. Samayamoorthy also filed a memo before the High Court, contending that the PIL petition was politically motivated as it had been filed by Kutty, alias K. Venkatachalapathy, who was a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) office-bearer in Tirunelveli district. Though the petitioner had challenged the State laws on 56 grounds, his primary contention was that the State laws were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. Stating the validity of Regulation 7.3 was in itself a subject matter of the litigations pending before the Supreme Court for quite sometime now, the Secretary said, adding that it would only be appropriate to transfer the present PIL petition to the top court and tag it along with the cases pending there. The Division Bench was also informed that a mention was made before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on May 19, 2025, seeking early listing of the transfer petition and that the CJI had orally asked the counsel for the State government to inform the High Court about the transfer petition. The Higher Education Secretary also stated there was no grave urgency involved in the case for the High Court to hear the matter during summer vacation, without providing sufficient time for the State government to file a detailed counter affidavit, meeting all 56 grounds. He urged the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan to defer the hearing on the PIL petition until the disposal of the transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court.
