Published Feb 04, 2026 | 5:27 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 04, 2026 | 5:27 PM
Supreme Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: During the hearing, the petitioner opposing the law sought a direction to restrain the State from implementing the legislation and from making Vice-Chancellor appointments. The Tamil Nadu government assured the court that no Vice-Chancellors would be appointed until the High Court completes its hearing.
Supreme Court on Wednesday, 4 February, set aside the Madras High Court’s interim order which had stayed the Tamil Nadu law empowering the Chief Minister, instead of the Governor, to appoint Vice-Chancellors of state-run universities.
Hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal, a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the High Court should not have passed the stay order during the vacation sitting without granting adequate time to the State to file its response. The State government argued that the case was taken up urgently during the court vacation and that due procedure was not followed.
Recording the State’s undertaking, the Supreme Court directed that the challenge to the law should be heard afresh by the Madras High Court on merits. It asked the High Court to constitute an appropriate Bench and dispose of the matter within six weeks, and also set aside the observations made by the vacation Bench.
During the hearing, the petitioner opposing the law sought a direction to restrain the State from implementing the legislation and from making Vice-Chancellor appointments. The Tamil Nadu government assured the court that no Vice-Chancellors would be appointed until the High Court completes its hearing.
The High Court granted the interim stay in May 2025. 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.
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.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
