Madras HC Hears Plea to Stop 12 TN Laws Removing Governor’s Role in VC Appointments

A PIL in the Madras High Court challenges 12 Tamil Nadu laws that transfer Vice-Chancellor appointment powers from the Governor to the State. The petitioner claims these laws violate UGC norms and constitutional regulations. The court will review the petition on May 21, 2025, considering the validity and potential interim orders.

Bombay High Court Slams Sanskrit College for 7-Year Probation of Assistant Professor, Says Gandhi-Inspired Institutions Must Ensure Fair Treatment

The Bombay High Court condemned Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay for unfairly keeping Assistant Professor Reshu Singh on probation for nearly seven years. The Court mandated her confirmation as of June 20, 2020, and awarded her associated benefits, emphasizing the exploitation of teaching staff against institutional values.

Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions on UGC Rules in Case Linked to Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi Suicides Over Caste Bias

Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, highlighting caste-based discrimination linked to their children’s suicides. The Court allows suggestions for UGC regulations to address such discrimination in higher education. Measures for better enforcement and protection for students are critically discussed.

Delhi High Court Seeks Government’s Response on Jamia Millia Islamia VC Appointment Plea

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has recently asked the Central government and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University to respond to a petition challenging the appointment of Professor Mazhar Asif as the Vice Chancellor of the University.

Tamil Nadu Government vs Governor Row| Couldn’t Simply Sit on Bills Because He Believed It’s Conflicted with Central Laws, Instead Of Giving Opinions: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: On Friday (8th Feb): The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns over a “deadlock” caused by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi not taking a decision on bills passed by the legislative assembly. The court questioned how the state government could function if the Governor neither approved nor communicated his reasons for withholding assent.