PTI
SURAJKUND, FEBRUARY 18
The national flag will fly atop a 207-ft tall flag mast on the campuses of all 46 Central Universities “prominently and proudly” to signify a “strong India”, a resolution adopted at a meeting of their Vice Chancellors with HRD Minister Smriti Irani said today.
The first of such flags will be hoisted on the restive JNU campus, officials in the HRD Ministry said.
“At a central place in every university, the national flag will be flown prominently and proudly,” the resolution passed at a meeting Irani had with the Vice Chancellors of Central universities, said.
The move drew a sharp reaction from the Congress which said nationalism doesn’t mean hoisting the flag and singing Vande Mataram and that it should be reflected in one’s belief in the Constitution. CPM leader Brinda Karat also slammed government for the decision.
The decision came in the midst of raging row over the arrest of JNU students union president Kanhaiya Kumar on sedition charges for being present at an event on the campus where anti-India slogans were raised. Though the government is facing strident opposition criticism over the issue, today’s move reflects its resolve to adopt an aggressive posture on it.
The proposal for hoisting the national tricolour atop a 207-feet pole was put forward by Irani and unanimously endorsed by all the 46 Vice Chancellors, HRD officials said. She also put forth the proposal for hoisting the first such flag at JNU, which too was backed by all the VCs, they said.
Officials in HRD Ministry said as per the resolution all the central universities, including JNU, will have to fly the tricolor and the decision was taken to “symbolise a strong and united India” in the institutions of higher education.
Irani had called the meeting of VCs following widespread protest over suicide of Dalit scholar of Hyderabad University Rohith Vemula.
“Nationalism just doesn’t mean hoisting the flag and singing Vande Mataram. It is about showing your belief in the Constitution, it is about showing respect to the institutions which have made the country a democratic set up,” Congress’ R P N Singh said.
The JNU row had become the subject of a massive political fight with Opposition coming down hard on the government. The protests have taken place in many universities including in Jadavpur University in West Bengal.
At the meeting several important aspects related to higher education, including the implementation of 2012 UGC regulations by varsities for promoting equity and addressing grievances of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe students discussed.
SC to hear Kanhaiya Kumar’s bail plea today
A day after violence erupted in the Patiala House Courts complex in open defiance of the Supreme Court’s call for calm, the apex court on Thursday accepted that “something extraordinary is going on in this country” while agreeing to hear a bail plea moved by JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, facing sedition charges after anti-national slogans were allegedly raised in the university campus.
“I am a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University and not some hardened criminal,” Kumar said in his petition.
Mr Kumar moved the Supreme Court for bail and release from custody under Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 is an extraordinary judicial relief sought from the highest court in the land when a citizen seeks protection of his fundamental rights, including his life and personal liberty.
In his petition, Mr Kumar refers to the repeat violence on the court premises and explained that he has directly moved the apex court as there has been an “exceptional and unprecedented breakdown of justice delivery mechanism and administration of justice even after the writ of the Supreme Court”.
The petition was met with protests inside the courtroom of a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and A.M. Sapre.
R P Luthra, an advocate in the Supreme Court, protested that Mr Kumar’s bail plea before the Supreme Court is against procedural law and the apex court should not behave like a magistrate.
“I am yet to see a procedure by which this Court can hear such a petition,” Mr Luthra said.
“If a citizen comes to this Court saying that his fundamental rights are under threat, we have to hear him… Something extraordinary is going on in this country. No doubt about it… We will certainly examine this issue,” Justice Chelameswar responded.
“In Malda, people were raped and looted… nobody brought it here. Recently the Delhi High Court was locked by lawyers on strike… is that not alarming too,” Mr Luthra asked.
“Alarming or not… This Court will hear this petition… Everybody should remember that administration of justice should be fair,” Justice Chelameswar shot back, posting the petition for hearing on February 19, 2016 at 10.30 a.m.
Mr Kumar, represented by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Vrinda Grover, said, on February 15, 2016 as lawyers went on a rampage, he was produced before Magistrate Loveleen Singh at “another location” and remanded to two days’ custody.
On February 17, 2016, despite the apex court’s directions to Delhi Police for his safety, the latter “failed to adequately protect” Mr Kumar, the petition said.
Failure on part of the Delhi Police is a clear violation of Mr Kumar’s fundamental rights as well as Article 144 of the Constitution which mandates all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court of India.
Mr Kumar said lawyers were prowling in the court complex ready to “lynch” him and he was in no position to seek bail before the magistrate.
“His lawyers remained under seizure till 7 p.m. as the Delhi Police was not able to provide security to them for safe exit and kept saying they are waiting for ‘enough force’,” the petition said.
This was when Police Commissioner B.S. Bassi had earlier in the day assured the apex court that he was “100 per cent sure” about extricating lawyers, journalists and JNU members trapped inside the Magistrate’s courtroom as violence escalated outside on February 17, 2016.
“Present circumstances are exceptional and call for an exceptional remedy,” the petition said.
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court and the lawyers’ team submitted their reports in sealed covers to the Supreme Court.
The Delhi Police counsel and senior advocate Ajit Sinha, who was part of the six-member team of lawyers who was sent by the Supreme Court to the Patiala House Courts complex to take stock, said he did not sign the team report.
“I wanted to read it and sign. He (senior advocate and fellow team member Harin Rawal) told me to just sign,” Mr. Sinha told the court.
The Delhi Police, also represented by Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta on Thursday, assured it would file its report on Friday.
The Court will also hear a separate petition filed by advocate Subhash Chandran seeking an order to set up a Special Investigation Team to go into the circumstances of the violence at Patiala House Courts complex.
