The Governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, has accused the state government of “stonewalling” the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs) to state universities and of attempting to usurp the legal framework governing such appointments by vesting the power in itself in breach of mandatory University Grants Commission (UGC) provisions.
In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the governor’s office rejected the state’s counter-claims that the chancellery had politicised universities or adopted an obstructive posture, and said the real cause of delays in filling vice-chancellor vacancies was the state government’s effort to bypass the UGC Regulations, 2018 and divest the governor of the appointing authority.
UGC also filed a separate affidavit endorsing the governor’s position, saying that the state legislature’s amendments run afoul of UGC Regulations and that the regulations have the force of law that must be followed by all universities.
The dispute concerns a set of amendments enacted by the Tamil Nadu legislature that remove the governor’s power, exercised as chancellor of state universities, to appoint VCs and instead empower the state government to constitute search committees, prescribe eligibility criteria and make appointments.
The state has challenged an interim order of the Madras High Court on May 21 that stayed operation of those amendments to the extent they take away the chancellor’s appointing power. The state is represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson in the top court while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represents UGC.
{{/usCountry}}The state has challenged an interim order of the Madras High Court on May 21 that stayed operation of those amendments to the extent they take away the chancellor’s appointing power. The state is represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson in the top court while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represents UGC.
{{/usCountry}}A bench led by Justice PS Narasimha is expected to hear the state’s appeal on Thursday.
The governor’s affidavit sets out a chronological record of correspondence between Raj Bhavan and the state government about the constitution and reconstitution of search cum selection committees for Bharathiar University, the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University and the University of Madras. The record, the affidavit says, shows that the governor repeatedly sought the reconstitution of panels to include a nominee of the UGC chairman in line with UGC Regulations and with earlier judicial directions, but that the state either delayed or refused to accept those reconstitutions.
According to Ravi’s affidavit, after repeated reminders the governor as chancellor ultimately included the UGC chairman’s nominee and notified the reconstituted committees, but the state persisted in refusing to accept the inclusion and later sought recall of the governor’s notifications.
“As the government did not reconstitute the committee as per UGC Regulations, despite repeated reminders, the governor-chancellor had no other option but to add the nominee of the UGC chairman and to reconstitute the search cum selection committee and to notify the same,” it stated.
The governor’s affidavit further stressed that including the UGC chairman’s nominee was mandatory under the 2018 UGC Regulations and that the chancellor’s actions were aimed at legal compliance rather than delay.
It contended that the state’s amendments, which vest appointment powers in the government while leaving the governor nominally as chancellor, are inconsistent with the UGC Regulations and therefore cannot prevail. The affidavit further submitted that the UGC Regulations, once notified, become part of the statutory architecture governing higher education and have primacy over conflicting state enactments.
The UGC’s separate filing echoed this position, asserting that the state’s exercise of legislative competence to transfer the appointing power to the government violates UGC Regulations and that the UGC’s broad mandate to maintain higher education standards applies equally across all universities. The commission’s affidavit argues that the state’s attempt to circumscribe the UGC’s role is a misplaced afterthought and that the regulations must be observed as having the force of law.
In its appeal before the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government has contended that the high court acted with “undue haste” and stayed the operation of nine statutes enacted by the state legislature, many of which had received deemed assent as per the Supreme Court’s judgment dated April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu Vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. The amendments passed by the Assembly in April followed the Supreme Court’s rebuke to the Governor over delays in assenting to pending bills, most of which pertained to the appointment of VCs.
The April 8 ruling by the Supreme Court had struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi’s controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent. The matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.
The state, in its special leave petition, argued that the high court’s stay amounted to granting final relief at the interim stage. It pointed out that the high court passed its order without giving the state adequate opportunity to respond, file a counter-affidavit, or present its arguments on the merits.