Earlier, the Supreme Court had used its special powers to allow the state government to appoint Vice-Chancellors and approved the related bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Published Jun 04, 2025 | 4:02 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 04, 2025 | 4:02 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court seeking an interim stay on a Madras High Court order that put on hold the state law giving the government the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors in universities.
The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court seeking an interim stay on a Madras High Court order that put on hold the state law giving the government the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors in universities, sources said on Wednesday, 4 June.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had used its special powers to allow the state government to appoint Vice-Chancellors and approved the related bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. These bills had been kept pending without the Governor’s assent.
However, a case was later filed in the Madras High Court challenging this law. The high court bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshmi Narayanan heard the matter and imposed an interim stay on the implementation of the law.
In response, the Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court, seeking to transfer all such petitions from the high court to the apex court. The hearing on that request was postponed until after the court’s summer vacation.
Now, in a fresh move, the Tamil Nadu government has filed a new petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the Madras High Court passed its order without giving the state government a chance to respond or present its case.
The state has requested that the high court’s stay be set aside immediately and that the law be allowed to take effect.
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 judgement setting mandatory timeframes for Governors and the President to act on pending bills.
In May, 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).
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.
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.
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.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose.)
