In a recent turn of events at a university meeting, a dispute arose over the authority to chair the proceedings, highlighting a complex interplay of legal clauses and political tensions. The incident, which occurred on February 16, centered on the rightful occupant of the chairman’s seat as per the University Act and saw conflicting interpretations from key stakeholders.
According to University Act 9 (9), the Vice Chancellor holds exclusive authority to preside over meetings of the University Senate, Syndicate, and Academic Council. However, Clause 7 (2) stipulates that in the presence of the Chancellor, who is often the Governor, the Chancellor shall chair Senate meetings, typically convened for discussions on awarding honorary degrees. Notably, the Act does not delineate the powers of the Higher Education Minister, also designated as the Pro-Chancellor, leading to ambiguity regarding their role in such gatherings.
The controversy unfolded when the Higher Education Minister assumed the chairman’s position, citing their authority as Pro-Chancellor, given the absence of the Chancellor. However, legal experts have contested this move, asserting that the Pro-Chancellor can wield the Chancellor’s powers only in their absence with prior authorisation, which, in this case, was not obtained.
Upon entering the meeting venue at the scheduled time of 11 am, the Vice Chancellor found the Minister occupying their seat, with a nameplate reading ‘PRO-CHANCELLOR’ already placed on the table. Despite the VC’s objection and assertion of their rightful authority per the University Act, the Minister insisted on chairing the meeting, leading to a standoff.
The meeting agenda, initially intended for electing the Senate’s representative to the Search Committee for appointing the VC, took a contentious turn when members of the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) nominated two former VCs to the committee. Simultaneously, members of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) raised objections, citing non-conformity with the University Act, and the matter being subjudice in the Supreme Court.
Amidst the discord, the Minister declared the passing of a resolution, which the VC contested, resulting in the dissolution of the meeting without conclusive decisions. Subsequently, the Minister reportedly visited the VC’s chamber to sign the meeting minutes, but met with refusal from the VC, who expressed intent to submit a detailed report to the Governor for legal scrutiny.
The incident occurs against a backdrop of strained relations between the Governor and the LDF government, with ongoing protests by the Student Federation of India (SFI) exacerbating tensions. The aftermath of this dispute is anticipated to unfold through legal deliberations and political maneuvers, reflecting broader power struggles within the state’s academic and administrative spheres.
Comments