Dramatic scenes unfold in the Supreme Court as two advocates claim to represent Kannur University in the Priya Varghese appointment case, leading to an adjournment.
New Delhi: Dramatic scenes unfolded in the Supreme Court during the hearing regarding the appointment of Priya Varghese as Associate Professor, as two separate advocates appeared to represent Kannur University. The university's newly appointed advocate, Zulfiker Ali, and its former advocate, Subhash Chandran K R, both presented themselves before the court. While Zulfiker requested an adjournment, Subhash Chandran informed the bench that he was fully prepared to argue the case. However, following a request from the senior counsel representing Priya Varghese, the hearing was deferred to September 23.
The matter was taken up by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi. As soon as the bench called the case, Zulfiker Ali stated that he was representing the university and requested additional time to file his formal appearance (vakalatnama). Intervening at this juncture, Subhash Chandran informed the court that all preliminary procedures were complete and that he was ready to commence arguments.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for Priya Varghese, informed the bench that he was mid-argument in another courtroom and requested a one-week adjournment. With no objections raised by other parties, including Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj appearing for the University Grants Commission (UGC), the court rescheduled the hearing to September 23.
The development follows reporting by Mathrubhumi News revealing the removal of Subhash Chandran K R, considered a confidant of CPM Kannur district secretary K K Ragesh, from the university's legal panel. Following his removal, newly appointed advocate Zulfiker Ali initiated steps to file his representation in the case.
Under Supreme Court procedures, a change of advocate requires a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the previous counsel on the original physical copy of the ‘vakalatnama’. Although Zulfiker Ali attempted to transfer a scanned copy sent by the university, Subhash Chandran insisted that an NOC could only be granted on the original document, leading to the procedural deadlock.
Published: 08 Sept 2026, 02:27 pm IST
Disclaimer: Kindly avoid objectionable, derogatory, unlawful and lewd comments, while responding to reports. Such comments are punishable under cyber laws. Please keep away from personal attacks. The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of readers and not that of Mathrubhumi.
