NEW DELHI: In a setback to the West Bengal government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed its plea against the Calcutta High Court's order that had quashed re-appointment of Prof Dr Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Calcutta University's Vice Chancellor.
She is wife of former IAS officer Alapan Bandyopadhyay, now serving as the Chief Advisor to the Chief Minister.
The Mamata Banerjee government's decision for re-appointment was objected to by the Chancellor, i e, Governor.
Upholding the High Court's judgement, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli said, "The State government chose the incorrect path under Section 60 (of the Calcutta University Act) by misusing the removal of difficulty clause to usurp the power of the Chancellor to make the appointment."
Prof Sonali was re-appointed with effect from August 28, 2021 for a period of four years.
She is a daughter of Bengali poet Nirendranath Chakravarty and freedom fighter Sushama Chakravarti.
Her appointment was challenged before the High Court in a PIL.
The HC concluded that the scheme of Section 8 of the Act empowered only the Chancellor to appoint, re-appoint, temporarily appoint or remove the VC.
"In other words, the State government has no power to appoint or re-appoint the VC," the HC had said.
In its decision on appeal by the state government, the top court said the High Court's judgement is correct and does not call for any interference.
"The High Court in our view was justified in coming to the conclusion that in the guise of removing the difficulties, the State cannot change the scheme and essential provisions of the Act, the bench said.
The bench further said, "A government cannot misuse the removal of difficulty clause to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation."
Read Judgment
