Mr. Counsel, Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the appointing authority has the power to remove. The Visitor appointed the First Registrar. Does Section 16 not apply?

My Lord, Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies only when the statute is silent on the power of removal. Where the statute provides a specific mechanism for removal, that mechanism must be followed. Here, the Act and the Statutes provide a specific mechanism for removal under Statute No. 28. The appointing authority is the Executive Council. The Visitor is not mentioned anywhere as having removal power. Section 16 cannot override the specific provisions of the Act. Moreover, Section 46(b) is a transitional provision only for the first appointment. It does not say anything about removal. Therefore, the general power of removal under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be invoked to confer power on the Visitor.

The proviso to Section 20(1) says that the Steering Committee of MOCA shall function as the interim Executive Council. MOCA officers were involved in the disciplinary process. Is that not sufficient compliance?

My Lord, the proviso says the Steering Committee shall function as the interim Executive Council. It does not say that individual officers of MOCA can take disciplinary action. The Steering Committee is a body. It must meet and take decisions as a committee. There is no evidence that the Steering Committee ever met or approved the disciplinary action against the respondent. The entire action was taken by officers of MOCA acting individually. That is not compliance with the statutory scheme. The Steering Committee was bypassed entirely.

The First Registrar's term expired on 28.02.2022. Why are you still fighting this litigation? You are no longer in service. What is your grievance?

My Lord, the termination order affects my client's reputation and future employment prospects. It also affects his entitlement to back wages and other consequential benefits. Even though his term has expired, a termination order on grounds of misconduct will follow him for the rest of his career. He is entitled to a declaration that the termination order is illegal and without jurisdiction. The High Court has already granted him back wages up to 07.04.2022. That order is under challenge. My client has a legitimate interest in defending that order.

In the earlier round of litigation, you did not raise the plea that the Visitor lacked authority. Does that not amount to waiver or acquiescence?

My Lord, the earlier round of litigation dealt with a different termination order — the order dated 08/09.01.2020 that terminated my client's services during probation. That order was set aside by the Division Bench. The present termination order is a fresh order dated 27.04.2022. My client challenged this fresh order. The plea that the Visitor lacks authority was raised in the writ petition challenging this fresh order. There is no waiver. My client could not have raised this plea in the earlier proceedings because the earlier proceedings dealt with a different order. Moreover, a plea of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including for the first time in appeal.

For RespondentService Premium

Visitor Has No Role in Disciplinary Matters Under the Act — (2026) INSC 520

Under the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 and the Statutes, the Visitor's powers are limited to those enumerated in Section 9.

Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh — (2026) INSC 520

Core Argument

Under the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 and the Statutes, the Visitor's powers are limited to those enumerated in Section 9. Disciplinary action against the Registrar must be taken by the Executive Council under Statute No. 28. The Visitor has no power to terminate services.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in