Minister Sivankutty Says Governor Must Reconsider Role Amid VC Appointment Crisis

Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Education Minister V. Sivankutty said that the controversy over the prolonged delay in appointing Vice Chancellors has reached a point where Governor Rajendra Arlekar must introspect and decide whether he is fit to continue as Chancellor of the state’s universities, as legal and public pressure intensifies.

In a Facebook post, Sivankutty argued that the Governor should reconsider whether it is appropriate to engage in legal confrontations with a democratically elected government using taxpayer money. He accused the Governor of neglecting constitutional responsibilities and intentionally delaying Vice Chancellor appointments — an approach that, he said, disrupts the functioning of academic institutions and undermines democratic values.

Sivankutty’s remarks followed strong observations by the Supreme Court, which on Friday expressed dissatisfaction with the Governor’s prolonged indecision. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan directed the Governor to finalize the appointments within one week, remarking that such delays were “unacceptable and unjustifiable.”

The state government had earlier alleged that the Governor was attempting to advance candidates aligned with Sangh Parivar ideological interests in university leadership. In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court appointed former Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as the Chair of the Search Committee to ensure a neutral and transparent selection process.

The Search Committee’s recommended panel of candidates was first submitted to the Chief Minister and subsequently forwarded to the Governor, but no action was taken for more than three months. This period of inaction was highlighted in court by senior advocate Jayadeep Gupta and standing counsel C.K. Shashi, appearing for the state.

When the Governor’s office argued that the required documents had not been received, the bench firmly rejected the claim, stating that the report submitted by Justice Dhulia was not “merely a piece of paper.” The Court made it clear that the reasons offered for the delay were unacceptable.