Published Dec 01, 2023 | 10:46 AM ⚊ Updated Dec 01, 2023 | 10:46 AM
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and Governor Arif Mohammad Khan.
The Supreme Court verdict quashing the reappointment of Gopinath Ravindran as vice-chancellor (VC) of Kannur University kicked off a political storm in Kerala on Thursday, 30 November.
While Governor Arif Mohammad Khan accused Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of having exerted pressure on him in the matter, the Congress-led UDF opposition sought the resignation of state Higher Education Minister R Bindu.
The ruling CPI(M) turned the tables on Governor Khan, attacking him politically, while the BJP came to his defence and termed Ravindran’s reappointment an instance of corruption and nepotism by the chief minister and the state government.
Soon after the verdict was pronounced, Khan recalled the events that led to him reappointing Ravindran as Kannur University’s vice-chancellor and blamed Chief Minister Vijayan for having pressured him into doing it.
Speaking to reporters in Thiruvananthapuram, Khan also said that Minister Bindu was not to be blamed as the chief minister had used her to seek the reappointment of Ravindran.
The Supreme Court, while quashing the reappointment, berated the Left government for its “unwarranted intervention” in the matter.
The apex court found fault with Khan’s order reappointing Ravindran to the post, saying the Governor had earlier “abdicated or surrendered” the statutory powers for reappointing the vice-chancellor.
It also said it is the Chancellor who is conferred with competence under law to appoint or reappoint VCs. “No other person, even the pro-chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority,” it held.
Following the verdict, Khan claimed that a person claiming to be the personal law advisor of the CM had visited him along with Vijayan’s OSD (Officer on Special Duty) and urged him not to go through with the normal process of appointing the VC of Kannur university at the time.
He further claimed that the two later had come with a letter from Higher Education Minister Bindu and a legal opinion of the Advocate General of Kerala for “scuttling” the regular appointment process and reappointing Ravindran as VC.
He added: “I told them what they were proposing was illegal. Since they came with the legal opinion of the AG, I agreed. But I told them that what they were asking me to do was illegal, irregular and not in line with the law.”
“Thereafter, I wrote to the CM saying that what he made me do is illegal and that he (CM) will keep bringing this pressure on me in other matters also,” Khan said.
He had, therefore, requested the CM to make alternative arrangements, saying if he continued as Chancellor, Vijayan would again make him do something illegal, the Governor claimed.
“Therefore, it was not the Higher Education Minister. The minister was used as a tool by the CM. All pressure came from the CM’s office,” he alleged.
Responding to reporters asking whether he would seek the resignation of the CM, Khan said it was a “moral question” for Vijayan and the government to answer.
“After this scathing verdict, that you (government) are interfering, bringing pressure on the Governor and not allowing him to function in a normal manner, now it is for the AG and the CM to decide (on whether to resign).
“I leave it to them, am nobody. I am not going to demand anybody’s resignation. Karmas, they come to haunt you. There is no way you can get rid of the consequences of Karmas,” Khan said.
Meanwhile, the ruling CPI(M) demanded the Governor’s resignation, citing his recent remarks about Bills pending before him.
“If he has any decency, then it’s high time that he resigned from the post of Governor,” CPI(M) state secretary MV Govindan said.
Coming to the defence of the Governor, Union Minister of State for External Affairs V Muraleedharan alleged that Ravindran’s appointment was an instance of nepotism by the CM and that it amounts to corruption.
Speaking about the Supreme Court judgment, Govindan said the apex court order has to be accepted, and that further course of action would be decided after going through it.
Bindu, too, spoke along similar lines, saying she would react on the issue after going through the SC verdict.
The minister further said that the government made the proposal for Ravindran’s reappointment based on the legal opinion of the AG and that the power of appointment was vested in the Governor.
The Congress-led UDF on the other hand contended that its claims about the reappointment of the Kannur VC have been vindicated by the apex court verdict.
Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the state Assembly VD Satheesan also demanded the resignation of Bindu, saying she ought not to have interfered with the VC appointment process. “The minister should resign today,” he said.
Satheesan said that even the apex court observed that there was unwarranted intervention by the state government and that the Governor succumbed to it.
Muraleedharan expressed surprise at Satheesan seeking Bindu’s resignation and not that of the CM.
He questioned whether the LoP was scared of the CM or whether the Congress has decided to protect Vijayan and ensure he continues in power.
Ravindran, meanwhile, said he was not aware of any illegality in connection with his reappointment and said that in many other universities in the country, VCs have been reappointed.
He said he would go back to his regular job as a professor in the History Department of Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi from Friday, 1 December.
Ravindran said that he did a lot for Kannur University and some things remain to be done.
Regarding other appointments made in the university, he said there were no illegalities in them either and that the entire process was carried out transparently.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court had on 23 February last year dismissed an appeal against a single-judge order upholding the reappointment of Ravindran, saying it was done in accordance with the law and that he was not “a usurper of the post”.
The impugned judgment and the order passed by the high court dated 23 February 2022, are hereby set aside and, as a consequence, the notification dated 23 November 2021, reappointing respondent number 4 (Ravindran) as the vice chancellor of the Kannur University is hereby set aside, the top court said in its judgment.
(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)
