The law, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and subsequently notified in the state gazette in early April, was among ten long-pending bills cleared without the assent of the Governor or the President.
Published May 21, 2025 | 8:14 PM ⚊ Updated May 21, 2025 | 8:14 PM
Advocate General Raman argued that the law had been duly passed, approved, and notified, and that the UGC’s powers were limited.
Synopsis: The Madras High Court has granted an interim stay on a Tamil Nadu law that shifts the power to appoint vice-chancellors in state universities from the Governor-Chancellor to the State Government. The law, enacted in April without the Governor’s or President’s assent, is being challenged for allegedly violating University Grants Commission norms.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday, 21 May granted an interim stay on a recently enacted Tamil Nadu law that shifts the power to appoint vice-chancellors of state universities from the Governor-Chancellor to the State Government.
The law, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and subsequently notified in the state gazette in early April, was among ten long-pending bills cleared without the assent of the Governor or the President.
The notification followed the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment setting mandatory timeframes for Governors and the President to act on pending bills.
The matter is now expected to be escalated to the Supreme Court, where the state’s plea for transfer is pending.
Earlier this month, the legality of the legislation was challenged by a petitioner, Venkatachalapathi of Tirunelveli, who argued that the new law contravenes norms laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
The PIL was heard on Wednesday by a vacation bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan.
Representing the UGC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan maintained that the Tamil Nadu legislation is in direct conflict with existing UGC regulations and is, therefore, invalid.
Similarly, the counsel for the petitioner claimed that the legislation was enacted in violation of UGC norms and posed a threat to the autonomy of higher education institutions by bringing them under political influence.
With the process of appointing vice-chancellors already underway, he said judicial intervention was urgently required.
Tamil Nadu Advocate General PS Raman, representing the State Government, strongly opposed the interim stay.
He sought time to file a detailed counter-affidavit and stated that out of ten universities, search committees had been constituted only for two, with public calls for applications issued and deadlines set for 10 June. He requested a reasonable opportunity to respond before any interim order was passed.
Advocate General Raman argued that the law had been duly passed, approved, and notified, and that the UGC’s powers were limited.
He said that since the universities in question do not receive financial aid from the UGC, its regulations were not binding.
He emphasised that the legislation only modified the appointing authority from the Chancellor to the State Government, without altering the role of the Governor as the university’s titular head.
Senior Counsel P Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department, informed the court that a related case challenging the UGC regulations on vice-chancellor appointments is already pending before the Supreme Court.
He also stated that a writ petition has been filed in the apex court seeking transfer of this matter from the High Court.
Emphasising the political motivations behind the public interest litigation (PIL), allegedly filed by a BJP functionary, Wilson argued that urgent intervention by the High Court was unwarranted and procedurally unfair without granting the state an opportunity to respond.
Wilson further contended that the state’s legislation does not violate any constitutional principles and that no case had been filed against the appointment of search committees.
Instead, the challenge is solely to the transfer of vice-chancellor appointment powers.
He also questioned the authenticity of the government gazette copy attached with the petition, alleging that it might have been fabricated, and demanded an inquiry into how the petitioner accessed it.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
