Pondicherry University VC not asked to appear in Madras HC; registrar counters reports

NEW DELHI: The Pondicherry University registrar on Saturday clarified that the Madras High Court has not directed the PU vice-chancellor Gurmeet Singh to appear in person on January 6, 2023, in the contempt proceedings.

Some of the newspapers reported that the Pondicherry University vice chancellor was directed to appear in person in the contempt petition filed in the high court. “The actual fact is that a statutory notice has been issued calling for appearance of the Respondent in person on 06.01.2023… It is very clear that the statutory notice issued is in singular terms and not plural,” the official statement said.

“In terms of Statute 4(6) (g) under the Pondicherry University Act and Statutes, the Registrar is the authorized officer to represent the University in suits or proceedings by or against the University. The name of the Vice-Chancellor of Pondicherry University has been unnecessarily drawn into this which is not true. Pondicherry University strongly refutes such false and misleading reports,” the PU registrar said.

“Some of the students of Pondicherry University resorted to sudden agitation from February 6, 2020, exhibiting unruly and unlawful behaviour such as gheraoing and preventing university authorities and staff from discharging their official duties and in this process caused damages to University property,” the registrar said. The students were protesting against the 225 percent hike in fees in some departments.

Following this, “Pondicherry University magnanimously refrained from lodging criminal complaint despite grave misbehaviour and confined to insisting on apology and payment of token fine amount of Rs 10,000 despite huge damages and loss etc.”

Also read | JNU asks PhD, MPhil students to vacate hostel; BAPSA calls UGC, administration ‘insensitive’

The registrar said that the Madras High Court Justice Thandapani while hearing a batch of writ petitions approved the action taken by the university.

“As apology was not clear and unconditional despite acceptance of guilt and payment of fine which would mislead the present students, review was preferred seeking clear and unconditional apology and waiting outcome in the review petition compliance was deferred,” he further clarified on the matter.