Kerala Governor Vs University Vice Chancellors: Kerala High Court Hearing- LIVE UPDATES

Bench : Addl AG Ashok Cherian submitted that the State will not take sides either with Chancellor or Vice Chancellors. He added that Chancellor has issued a letter asking for police protection in universities when Acting VCs are to take charge.

Bench : ...has issued individual notices to show cause for 10 days and that it is only after it is considered that he will take further action.

Bench : He said that the Supreme Court in judgments have found fault with the Chancellors for not acting as per declarations of law and in such circumstances the notices were issued. Since none of the VCs took the easy option of resignation, the Chancellor ..

Bench : were illegal and to save them the ignominy, they were given an option for honourable exit and his client acted in good faith as he is fully aware that all are working for same system. He further said Chancellor had no option but to act in the light of SC judgments

Bench : Chancellors of all universities are the same individual in the capacity of the Governor of the State. His version was given by Sr Adv Jaju Babu, who said impugned communications were issued in good faith and with the intent to notify the VCs that their appointments

Bench : Sandeep Ankarath added a twist by saying as per the relevant statute, the panel can be a unitary name. Also, the Chancellor could not have acted so as another writ of quo warranto was pending.

Bench : M Sasindran argued that Chancellor cannot initiate the action. MP Sreekrishnan had an argument that the enquiry under a committee was required, which was to be led by a serving or retired judge and search committee found he was the only suitable person.

Bench : PC Sasisdharan supplemented saying even if Chancellor is to find any irregularity, he cannot act unilaterally and he should wait for someone to challenge and the SC judgment is delivered in personam and cannot be used as a standard to assess competence of all VCs in state.

Bench : Elvin Peter in addition argued that the judgment referred to by the Chancellor in the impugned communication could not apply to petitioners, as SC had delivered judgment considering the 2010 UGC Regulations while all the petitioners are appointed under 2018 regulations

Bench : on grounds other than enumerated. They also contend that action of Chancellor is in flagrant violation of principles of fair play and natural justice, the removal in a peremptory manner, that too with less than 24 hrs notice, is not merely illegal but also mala fide.