Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL To Remove Visvesvaraya Technological University VC Citing Lack Of Petitioners' Bonafide

The Karnataka High Court has said that a petitioner who invokes PIL jurisdiction, more particularly with a prayer for a Writ of Quo Warranto, has to approach the court with ‘clean heart, clean mind and clean objective'.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while dismissing two "identical" petitions filed by Professor B Shivraj and Dr. K Mahadev, questioning the appointment of Vidyashankar S, as Vice Chancellor of Visvesvaraya Technological University. The petitioners also sought his removal on the ground that his appointment is violative of UCG regulation of Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges.

The petitioners had claimed that the Search Committee was wrongly constituted in as much as two of its members were associated with the affairs of the respondent–University and there was no UGC nominee in the said Committee. It was further contended that Vidyashankar did not have good credentials as are required for the high office of the Vice Chancellor of a University and that he has some criminal antecedents too.

The bench took into account the conduct and credentials of both the petitioners Dr.K.Mahadev and Professor Shivraj wherein they have been involved in civil, revenue or criminal litigation. It said “Learned advocates appearing for the contesting respondents are more than justified in contending that the Writ Petitions lack bonafide.”

Observing that the text, tenor and language of the petitions were ditto, barring in those paragraphs which mention personal credentials of the petitioners, Court said, "these are ‘copy-paste’ petitions couched in verbatim duplicate language. The same counsel on record representing the petitioners has drafted these petitions, does not dilute our this impression, even in the least.”

Then it opined “The persons presenting & prosecuting social action litigations should act in bonafide; those seeking to secure vengeance qua certain private parties cannot be granted indulgence by the Court of Constitutional jurisdiction.”

Refusing to examine the contentions and counter contention of the parties on merits the bench said, “In our considered opinion, petitions lack bonafide and petitioners have not approached the court with ‘clean hands, clean heart & clean objective’. This apart, there is a short unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners in calling in question the subject appointment to a public office. The Vice Chancellor, ideally speaking, is the “Conscience Keeper of the University”.”

It added, “Whilst examining the appointment of such a high functionary, this aspect cannot be lost sight of. After all, Mahatma Gandhi said “means are as important as the ends”. “

Relying on Supreme Court judgment in the case of K. Jayaram vs. BDA (2022), the court held, “It has been a settled position in the domain of public law that where a litigant, more particularly dominant litis is not fair in approaching the court inasmuch as he has not laid bear all facts including those of his credentials, ordinarily, the lis will not be examined on merits.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petitions.

Appearance: Advocate Narayan Bhat for Advocate Manjunath K V for petitioners.

AAG Vikram Huilgol for R1.

Advocate Santosh S Nagarale for R2 & R6.

Senior Advocate Uday Holla for Advocate Abhishek Kumar for R3.

Advocate M P Srikanth for R5.

Advocate Showri H R for R7.

Advocate Poojappa for R8.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

Case Title: Prof B Shivaraj And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21681 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION No.23349 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order