Back
Judges : MALIMATH,VISWANATHA IYER
Gopalakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, University of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 1556 of 1989
Decided On : 03/07/1990
Advocates Appeared :
K. Balakrishnan; For Petitioner T. P. Kelu Nambiar; For Ist Respondent K. Sudhakaran; For 2nd Respondent P. Gopalakrishnan Nair; For 3rd Respondent K. S. Rajamony; For Respondents 5, 6, 8,10 K.K. Gopinathan; For 7th Respondent
Chancellor's Discretion - Nominations to University Senate - Kerala University Act, 17 of 1974 - S.3, S.7, S.8, S.17 - The court held that the Chancellor of the University, while exercising powers under the Kerala University Act, is not bound to act solely on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Act makes a clear distinction between the Chancellor and the government, and confers specific powers on the Chancellor to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute. The court emphasized the importance of university autonomy and academic excellence, stating that the Chancellor should act on his own discretion, unhampered by the necessity of seeking or following the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers.
Fact of the Case:
The controversy arose from the nomination of members to the Senate of the University of Kerala by the Chancellor. The petitioner, a working journalist, challenged the nomination of seven members, alleging that they were nominated without the advice of the Council of Ministers and for political reasons. The Chancellor defended the nominations, stating that her powers as Chancellor are statutory and not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Chancellor's nominations were valid and within her rights under the Kerala University Act. It rejected the petitioner's allegations of mala fides and held that the Chancellor was not obligated to act solely on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising her powers as Chancellor.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the powers and obligations of the Chancellor under the Kerala University Act, specifically regarding the nomination of members to the University Senate and the extent of the Chancellor's discretion in making such nominations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Kerala University Act and the distinction it makes between the Chancellor and the government. It emphasized the importance of university autonomy and academic excellence, supporting the view that the Chancellor should act on her own discretion, unhampered by the necessity of seeking or following the aid and advice of her Council of Ministers.
Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed, and the court refused to grant leave for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court, as it did not involve any substantial question of interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution or any substantial question of law of general importance.
Viswanatha Iyer, J.
The Kerala University Act, 17 of 1974, (the Act) was enacted to re organise the University of Kerala with a view to establishing a teaching, residential and affiliating University for the southern districts of the State of Kerala. Under S.3, the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, the Pro-Vice Chancellor, if any, and the members of the Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council for the time being, shall constitute a body corporate by the name of the University of Kerala. S.7 of the Act provides that the Governor of Kerala shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University.
2. S.8 provides that the Minister for the time being administering the subject of education in the State shall be the Pro-Chancellor of the University. In the absence of the Chancellor or during his inability to act, the Pro-Chancellor shall exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the Chancellor.
3. S.17 specifies the constitution of the Senate of the University. It shall consist of the fifteen categories of ex-officio members (including the Chancellor), the twelve classes of elected members, the life members and the three groups of "other members". Since this original petition concerns group (2) among other members; we shall extract the relevant portions of S.17:-
"17. senate. the Senate shall consist of the following members, namely-Ex-Officio Members (4) The Chancellor
XXX XXX XXX XXX
Elected Members
XXX XXX XXX XXX
Life Members
XXX XXX XXX XXX
Other Members
XXX XXX XXX XXX
(2) Not more than nine members nominated by the Chancellor representing (i) recognised research institutions; (ii) recognised cultural associations; (iii) chambers of commerce; (iv) industries; (v) authors; (vi) journalists; (vii) lawyers; (viii) sports; and (ix) linguistic minorities.
XXX XXX XXX XXX"
4. The controversy in this case relates to the nomination made by the first respondent, Chancellor of the University of Kerala, of respondents 4 to 10 as members of the Senate of the University by the proceedings Ext.P1. The said nomination relates to group(2) "other members" of the Senate, provided for in S.17. The petitioner who is a working journalist, is himself a member so nominated by the Chancellor by the proceedings Ext.P1, as representing journalists. There is no controversy raised by him in relation to his nomination, or to the nomination of one P.K Venukuttan Nair, representing "recognised cultural associations". The dispute is only in relation to the nomination of the other seven, namely respondents 4 to 10, representing the other seven categories, namely (i), (iii) to (v) and (vii) to (ix) enumerated above.
5. The controversy arises this way. According to the petitioner, the nominations have been made by the Chancellor, acting on her own, "without the advice of her Council of Ministers. The Cabinet had advised the nomination of nine persons, chosen by it, but the Chancellor nominated only two from out of this list of nine" (namely the petitioner and P.K. Venukuttan Nair). The other seven, namely respondents 4 to 10 were nominated by her without the advice of the Cabinet. The petitioner points out that the Governor of Kerala is by virtue of her office, the Chancellor of the University. Article 163 of the Constitution therefore obliges her to act only in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Chancellor had no right to disregard the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, or act against it, and make nomination of persons of her own choice. Thereby the constitutional mandate of the Governor acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is violated and therefore, Ext.P1 to the extent it nominates respondents 4 to 10 to the Senate of the University of Kerala is unconstitutional, null and void.
6. It is also stated that these respondents are persons "recommended by the leaders of the State Congress (I) " with a view to further their own interests. They were "nomi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
