The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested the Madras high court to decide the contentious Tamil Nadu laws replacing the Governor with the state government in matters of appointment of vice chancellors in state universities, preferably within six weeks.
The top court vacated an interim stay on these laws passed by the high court on May 21, 2025 by recording an undertaking given by the state not to make any appointments till a final decision by the court.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant passed the order on an appeal filed by the state government objecting to the stay order of May 21, 2025 being passed by the Madras high court without giving them an opportunity to respond.
The petition in the high court filed by one K Venkatachalapathy alleged that the laws amended the various statutes governing state universities and fall foul of Regulation 7.3 of the 2018 Regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) prescribing qualifications for appointment of teachers and academic staff.
“We are not examining the matter on merits but the way in which the order came to be passed,” said the bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi. Sending the matter back to the high court, the top court said, “Since the main case is pending before the high court and the impugned judgment (of May 21) is an interlocutory (provisional) but in all sense has the effect of a final order, we do not wish to express any opinion on merits. All we wish to say is that the state and the appropriate authorities need to be given a hearing before passing the judgment.”
Citing this “technical” ground, the order said, “On this ground alone, the judgment is set aside and matter is remitted to the High Court at Madras.” The CJI-led bench requested the HC chief justice to assign the matter to a bench presided by him or any judge of his choice as the present CJ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava has barely a month to retire.
On court’s nudge, the state represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson submitted that till such date the judgment is delivered by the high court, “no appointments shall be made”. Appreciating the fair stand taken by the TN government, the bench requested the HC to make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably “within six weeks”.
The high court was further requested to give reasonable time for the state and the petitioner along with UGC to file its response and submit arguments. The bench clarified that the lifting of stay will have no bearing on the final order on merits and all adverse remarks or opinions contained in the May 21 order.
Singhvi told the court that while deciding the validity of any statute, arguments are heard and then the issue of stay is considered. “By this order, the state law is nullified and the UGC Regulation is superimposed with the state yet to respond in the matter,” Singhvi said.
Wilson further pointed out that the order was passed by the Vacation Bench of the high court despite reservation raised by the state. “The state cannot keep its universities headless. This petitioner has been set up by the opposition party. They are chasing us for every appointment that we make.”
The court made some pertinent queries to the petitioner as it observed that appointment of vice chancellors is not an urgent matter to be listed in the vacation as the HC is capable of setting aside any wrong appointment made by the state. “These are statutory laws having presumption of validity. At the interim stage itself, the statutory rule is suspended. Why should the matter go before a Vacation Bench. This was a pending matter and was not filed during the vacation. What was the tearing hurry as heavens would not fall,” the bench remarked.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for UGC and senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu representing the petitioner in the HC opposed the state’s appeal. Mehta said that UGC Regulations are binding on the state as it receives Central grants and the HC prima facie found the state amendments to be “repugnant” to the Central regulations.
Naidu objected to the state’s attack on the bench as “unfair” and “unethical” as he said that opportunity of filing a response was given to the TN government but since they took time, the bench issued the order.
The HC bench of justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said, “The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned Amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer.”
The amendments carried out by the state applied to appointment of V-Cs to 18 state universities replacing the word “Chancellor” with “Government” as it denuded the power of the Chancellor/Governor to assent to the state’s recommendations for appointment as V-Cs and even made removal of V-Cs subject to state’s order.
About the Author
