Madras high court stays law barring governor from appointing vice-chancellors
The amendments in question were part of a series of legislative changes passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly following a Supreme Court order dated April 8.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed a series of amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu government last month that sought to transfer the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities from the Governor to the State government.
A vacation bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayan passed the order amidst high courtroom drama and vehement opposition from the State government.
As the Court began dictating its order granting the stay, the judges’ microphone was muted, leaving Senior Counsel P Wilson, who was appearing for the State via videoconferencing, unable to hear the pronouncement. Wilson asked the court staff to unmute the mic and also urged the bench to clarify whether a stay had indeed been granted and whether any reasons were being recorded. The judges, however, brushed aside his concerns, stating there was no need to worry as the order would be uploaded soon. As of Wednesday evening, the order had not been uploaded.
The Court granted such interim stay while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by K Venkatachalapathy, a lawyer, challenging the constitutional validity of the recent amendments.
The petitioner claimed that the twelve amendments enacted by the State government were in direct conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, a central legislation. He argued that these Regulations mandate that Vice-Chancellors must be appointed by the Chancellor. In Tamil Nadu, the Governor, by virtue of office, functions as the Chancellor of all state universities. The amendments, the PIL alleged, sought to override the Governor’s role.
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under well established constitutional principles, when a conflict arises between Central and State legislation on matters in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails. Since the UGC Regulations already govern the subject matter, the State’s amendments were unconstitutional, he argued.
Both Wilson and Tamil Nadu Advocate General PS Raman argued that the matter was already before the Supreme Court. Wilson informed the bench that he had orally mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India, who had permitted him to apprise the High Court about the pending transfer petition.
The senior advocate also questioned the urgency in hearing the PIL during court vacations, pointing out that the amendments were passed as far back as April. “This matter concerns universities. The Governor is waging a war against the State. What is the public interest in this petition? It is politically motivated,” he said, claiming that the petitioner was a BJP district secretary from Tirunelveli.
However, the bench asked whether the Supreme Court had restrained the high court from hearing the matter. When Wilson admitted it had not, the bench chose to proceed and granted an interim stay, thereby halting the enforcement of the amendments until further orders.
The amendments in question were part of a series of legislative changes passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly following a Supreme Court order dated April 8. That order had pulled up Governor RN Ravi for delaying assent to 12 bills passed by the State Assembly,most of them concerning the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. The Supreme Court had deemed 10 of those bills as having received valid assent.
In the wake of that judgment, the Assembly passed fresh amendments on April 11, including changes to the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act. These sought to transfer critical powers, including the appointment of VCs, from the Governor to the State. Among the major changes was a proposal to restructure the VC search committee. The Bill proposes a four-member panel comprising two State government nominees, including a retired High Court judge and a senior bureaucrat, and one nominee from the university syndicate. The Chancellor’s nominee is to be removed from the process as per the bill.
Further, the bill empowered the State government to set eligibility criteria for VCs, receive recommendations directly from the search committee, and remove Vice-Chancellors from office. It also revoked the Governor’s authority to assent to or withhold approval of syndicate decisions.
