Loading dispatches...
← Return to NewsroomPolitics
Governor’s appointment of Sajitha Rani as Kerala Agricultural University V-C (in-charge) sparks row
Breaking
Yemen's government announces all-out war to reclaim land from Houthis
Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar has issued orders appointing T. Sajitha Rani as Vice-Chancellor (in-charge) of the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU). Dr. Sajitha Rani is currently Dean at KAU’s College of Agriculture, Padannakkad.In taking the decision, the Governor, in his capacity as Chancellor, KAU, has set aside the name recommended by the Kerala government. Higher Education Minister Roji M. John slammed the Lok Bhavan decision saying that the Governor acted unilaterally. Mr. John described the appointment as a violation of democratic principles. The Governor did not even consider the State government’s panel in arriving at the decision, he said, adding that the government will discuss and decide on the legal course of action.Meanwhile Agriculture Minister T. Siddique reacted to the development saying that the government’s recommendation was made on the basis of “academic excellence,” while the Lok Bhavan had considered “seniority.” “The name recommended by the government was that of an individual who had national and international reputation. However, Sajitha Rani was picked on the basis of seniority, according to the Lok Bhavan,” Mr. Siddique said. He added that he did not wish to go into “other controversies” at the moment.BJP-affiliated forumAccording to the June 27 order issued by Lok Bhavan, Dr. Sajitha Rani “shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor, KAU, in addition to her normal duties” until the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor on (a) regular basis for the university.The Lok Bhavan appointment has drawn flak on the grounds that Dr. Sajitha Rani is a member of a BJP-affiliated teachers’ organisation, but Lok Bhavan sources say the decision was based on seniority. Dr. Sajitha Rani entered service on August 16, 1993, and has over 32 years of academic experience. Her area of specialisation is agronomy, in which she secured her PhD from KAU in 2002. Published - June 27, 2026 11:39 pm IST
The stance of the United Democratic Front (UDF) government that it cannot withdraw from an MoU entered into between the Secretary, Education Department, Kerala, and the Secretary, Education Department, Government of India, on 16/10/2025 on the Prime Minister’s Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) scheme is unsustainable.Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, who had an active practice in the Kerala High Court for more than a decade and a constitutional expert, is not expected to take such a stance, which is per se unconstitutional.Article 299 of the Constitution stipulates the manner in which the Union of India and State governments enter into legally binding contracts. In accordance with the said Article, all binding contracts of the Union of India has to be expressed to be made by the President and all contracts regarding the State government by the Governor.The said Article stipulates that its execution should be by the persons duly authorised. The Supreme Court has consistently held from 1961 onwards in the State of Bihar vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 110) that a contract entered into in violation of the procedure mentioned in Article 299 not in the name of the Governor of the State or the President is not a contract and is a nullity. The said declaration of law was followed by the Kerala High Court also (Trivandrum Golf Club vs State of Kerala [2008 (4) KHC 472].Thus any agreement, which is not expressed in the name of the Governor of Kerala cannot constitute a legally enforceable contract regarding the State government.The MoU was entered into by the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Kerala, and the Additional Secretary, Department of Education, Government of India, and not in the name of the President and the Governor as mandated under Article 299. Hence, the said MoU is a nullity.Under Rule 10 of the Rules of Business in Government, it is clearly provided that all decisions having financial repercussions for the State shall have the consent of the Finance department. Any decision taken by a department without such consultation is legally unsustainable.In the present case, for implementing the PM SHRI scheme, 40% of the expenditure will have to be borne by the State government. Hence, the scheme will have financial implications for the State government and sanction from the Finance department is necessary. Many High Courts across the country, including in Bal Kalyani and others vs State of Maharashtra and others (1993 KHC 1414), have held that any decision by a department having financial implication without the consent of the Finance department is void abinitio.Under Article 166 of the Constitution, Kerala has framed Rules of Business in Government relating to the administrative functions of the State government. As per the said Rules, important policy decisions are to be taken only by the Council of Ministers (Cabinet).Various High Courts, including in Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra [2023 KHC Online 5010], have categorically stated that a decision on a policy matter taken unilaterally by an individual Minister, even Chief Minister, without the consent of the Council of Ministers is void abinitio.Here, the implementation of the PM SHRI scheme is a policy matter for which a decision has to be taken by the Council of Ministers. The Cabinet of the previous Left Democratic Front government had held discussions for taking a policy decision for implementing the scheme. However, no decision was taken and the issue was adjourned till the expiry of the government’s term in 2026.In the meanwhile, the MoU was executed by the department secretaries of the Union and State governments. Since the aforesaid matter is a policy decision, any decision taken unilaterally by any individual Minister without any Cabinet decision is a nullity.In view of the aforesaid legal situation, it is certain that the MoU is only a in principle decision of the department, which has no leg
Discussion (0)