Madras HC Stays Amending Laws Authorising Government and Not Governor to Appoint Vice-Chancellors

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, May 21: In a major setback for the Tamil Nadu government, the Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed the operation of a series of amendments carried out by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to make the State government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for Vice-Chancellors of various State-run universities.

The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan passed the interim order on a plea filed by an advocate challenging the series of legislative amendments passed by the State of Tamil Nadu, transferring the powers of appointing the Vice-Chancellor from the Governor to the State Government.

The petition against the Tamil Nadu Bills was filed by BJP leader K Venkatachalapathy, who argued that the provisions passed by the state government were contrary to existing University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.

He challenged the reasoning behind the amendments and highlighted the lack of clarity in the legislation about what the term “government” actually meant in the context of appointing vice-chancellors, whether it referred to the State Assembly, the Cabinet, or the Governor as the Executive Head.

The MK Stalin-led government prepared the amendments pursuant to the recent Supreme Court judgment defining the powers of the Governor. Last month, the Supreme Court had pulled up the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi saying that his decision to withhold assent to ten key Bills was “illegal” and “arbitrary.”

“The action of the Governor to reserve the 10 bills for the President is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the action is set aside. All actions taken by the Governor thereto for the 10 bills are set aside. These Bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date it was re-presented to the Governor,” the bench said on April 8.

Among these bills were laws that amended the rules for appointing Vice Chancellors of state-run universities, significantly curbing the Governor’s powers in the appointment process. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin hailed the “historic judgement” saying that these Bills officially became laws on November 18, 2023, the day the DMK government issued notifications to that effect.

The Supreme Court, during hearings, had questioned the Governor’s prolonged inaction and observed that the bills had been pending since January 2020. It pointedly asked why the Governor waited until the matter reached the court before taking any action. The bench also criticised the lack of communication from the Governor regarding any constitutional concerns he may have had with the bills.

The Madras High Court decision on Wednesday came as a significant setback for the DMK government and a moral victory for Ravi.

Initially, the A-G as well as the advocate for the education secretary P Wilson had urged the court to grant time for filing a counter affidavit and contended that there was absolutely no urgency in taking up the stay petition for hearing during the summer vacation hearing. However, the Bench rejected their request.

The Division Bench was also informed that the State government had already filed a petition before the Supreme Court urging it to transfer the PIL petition pending before the High Court, to itself and hear it along with connected cases already pending before the top court.

Higher Education Secretary C. Samayamoorthy too filed a memo before the High Court contending that the PIL petition was politically motivated as it had been filed by a person who was the Tirunelveli district secretary of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and an advocate by profession.

Though the petitioner had challenged the State laws on 56 grounds, his primary contention was that the laws were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018.

Stating the validity of Regulation 7.3 was in itself a subject matter of the litigations pending before the Supreme Court for quite some time now, the Secretary said it would only be appropriate to transfer the present PIL petition to the top court and tag it along with the cases pending there.

The memo also stated that a mention was made before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on May 19, 2025, seeking early listing of the transfer petition and that the CJI had orally asked the counsel for the State government to inform the High Court about the transfer petition.

The Higher Education Secretary further stated there was no grave urgency involved in the case for the High Court to hear the matter during summer vacation, without providing sufficient time for the State government to file a detailed counter affidavit, meeting out all 56 grounds.

He urged the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan to defer the hearing on the PIL petition until the disposal of the transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court but was not granted by the vacation bench.