SUPREME COURT ISSUES NOTICE ON TAMIL NADU'S CHALLENGE TO HIGH COURT STAY ON LAW CURTAILING GOVERNOR’S ROLE IN VC APPOINTMENTS:

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court's interim stay on legislative amendments that transferred the power of appointing Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities from the Governor to the state government. A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan passed the order, tagging the matter along with similar cases already pending before the apex court. The Court also issued notice to the respondents on the state's request for interim relief and granted the state liberty to seek an early hearing of the case.

The controversy arises from a series of twelve legislative amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu government that altered the process for appointing VCs by removing the Governor from the appointment process and vesting the authority in the state government. These amendments were introduced in light of a Supreme Court judgment in the “TN Governor case,” which had delineated the scope of the Governor’s powers. The amendments sought to operationalize the judgment by aligning the appointment procedure of VCs with the state’s administrative preferences.

However, the amendments were challenged before the Madras High Court by K Venkatachalapathy (respondent No.1), who argued that the changes were in direct conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, a Central law. According to him, the UGC Regulations require that Vice-Chancellors be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel recommended by a duly constituted Search Committee. He contended that by empowering the state government to appoint VCs, the amendments negated the role of the Chancellor, thereby creating a conflict with the Central framework.

On May 21, the Madras High Court issued an interim order staying the amendments. This was despite the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department (TNHED) informing the court that the state had filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court, which was likely to be listed in the following few days. The state urged the High Court to defer proceedings until the apex court had an opportunity to consider the transfer petition.

In its arguments before the High Court, the state, through the Advocate General, also opposed the stay, maintaining that the Supreme Court had previously cautioned against routinely staying legislation unless it was found to be ex facie unconstitutional or illegal. The TNHED further submitted that the gazette notification produced by the petitioners to challenge the amendments was not genuine. It claimed the document was forged and did not represent the version officially issued by the state government. Based on this suspicion, the department urged the High Court to order a CB-CID (Crime Branch – Criminal Investigation Department) investigation to determine how such a document had been submitted to the court.

Despite these objections, the High Court declined to defer the matter and proceeded to hear the writ petitioners. It subsequently granted an interim stay on the amendments. Aggrieved by this decision, the Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court seeking relief, which led to the issuance of notice and the tagging of the case with other similar petitions already before the Court.