SC upholds HC order quashing re-appointment of Dr Sonali as Calcutta University V-C

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a decision of the Calcutta High Court which had quashed re-appointment of Calcutta University Vice Chancellor Prof Dr Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee by the Mamata Banerjee government, despite disagreement with the decision by the Chancellor, i.e., the Governor.

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."

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."

Prof Sonali was reappointed 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.

Prof Sonali is married to Alapan Bandyopadhyay, who was the former Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and now serving as the Chief Advisor to the Chief Minister of West Bengal.

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 V-C.

"In other words, the state government has no power to appoint or re-appoint the V-C," the HC had said.

In its decision, 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.