Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan challenged Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to prove that he (Governor) has made any political interference. He was speaking to the media persons in Delhi today, November 3. He is ready to resign if CM proves any such incident. He also rejected CM’s allegation of political interference by him in the appointment of VCs in the state. He challenged the CM to prove that he has made any political appointment in Raj Bhavan. If CM proves that he has done it by appointing an RSS nominee in Raj Bhavan, he would resign from the position. He said, he has not even appointed his own nominee. He challenged the CM if he is ready to resign if he fails to prove it.
Governor lashed out at CM’s allegation that he was running a parallel government and at the claim that they are improving education sector. He alleged that Pinarayi regime fills the posts in the universities by appointing the relatives of CPM leaders, despite the candidates are underqualified and unqualified.
Governor alleged that CMO men patronise smuggling activities. If state government and people close to CM are involved in smuggling, he would interfere. Is CM ready to undergo enquiry into this ? He said further that there are issues which needs his interference. CM’s secretary was sacked. He wondered if the secretary was patronizing the culprits in the smuggling activities without CM’s knowledge. CMO is at one end of any illegal activities. They are now blaming me for my actions in the past. They could have stopped it and cancelled it if they thought that my actions were wrong.
Governor insisted, we want “Rule of the law, not rule of the ruler”.
Governor had yesterday, November 2, said that eight VCs, whose appointments were not straightforward, will have to pay back the salaries, they have drawn so far, to the treasury. He will look into it on his return from Delhi.
On top of the aforementioned, Governor asked some vital questions:
Who invited the “controversial” lady to join a holiday in the hill station ?
(He was referring to the disclosure of Swapna Suresh, the suspect in the gold smuggling case. She had alleged that the then Finance Minister Thomas Isaac had invited her to join him at Moonnar).
Next question was “Who appointed the ‘controversial lady’ in an important position in an office controlled by the state government.”
(He was referring to the appointment of Swapna Suresh as a consultant at the state government-controlled Spare Park even though she had no qualification for such a job. The Certificate she had produced was a forged one, it was alleged).
Another question: “How come the ‘controversial lady’ could visit the CM’s office ?”
It is a fact that no legal actions are initiated against the allegation raised by the ‘controversial lady’ in her recently published book.
Governor alleged that Finance Minister K.N. Balagopal challenged the national unity. The allegation was a reference to the minister’s statement that ‘a person from Uttar Pradesh cannot understand the conditions in Kerala.’
Justice Devan Ramachandran of Kerala High Court asked the Vice Chancellors of the state universities today, November 3, if they expect the Governor to shut his eyes to the anomalies in the appointment of them. He told them not to try to belittle the position of the Chancellor. He observed this while considering the petition filed by the Vice Chancellors against the Governor.
The same Justice Devan Ramachandran observed, yesterday, November 2, that Kerala University always deliberates ‘law’ in the court; but, he wondered does the senate resolution against Governor enjoy any legality.
Court was sharply critical about the Senate resolution against the Governor when it considered the petition moved by the Senate members against the Governor’s action of expelling them. Court wondered under which law the Senate passed such a resolution. Court observed that Senate cannot pass a resolution against the Governor. Court asked if the passing of resolution against the Governor is the mode of protest against the Governor’s action of appointing a Search Committee for the selection of the Vice Chancellor. Justice Devan Ramachandran asked whether they checked the legality of passing such a resolution (since they are always arguing ‘law’ in the court).
High Court observed, the appointment of the Vice Chancellor should not be delayed on the pretext of technical issues and controversies. A university should not be damaged in this manner. The controversy with respect to the selection of Search Committee should be controlled, otherwise it will blow up. Vice Chancellor shoulders lot of heavy responsibilities. University cannot do sans a VC. Justice Devan Ramachandran went to the extent of asking the university if it thinks that it does not need a VC.
Court postponed the hearing of the Senate member’s hearing until next Tuesday, November 8. And, University requested for time to inform whether meeting could be held before November 4.
University informed the Court that the Senate meeting scheduled to be held day after tomorrow would not consider any nominee to Search Committee.
T. Satisan
