SC seeks Centre, Governor’s response on TN appeal over VC appointment row

The state also urged the apex court to clarify that the Madras High Court may proceed to hear its application to vacate the stay on July 14

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Union government, office of the Tamil Nadu Governor and University Grants Commission (UGC) on a plea by the Tamil Nadu government challenging a Madras High Court order that stayed a set of laws shifting the power to appoint vice-chancellors (VCs) of state universities from the Governor to the state government.

The HC’s May 21 ruling had come on a PIL filed by a lawyer who challenged the constitutional validity of state’s amendments. (File photo)

A bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan sought the responses while hearing an appeal filed by the state government against the May 21 interim order passed by a vacation bench of the high court. The high court had in its order stayed the operation of recent state legislation amending various university laws to curtail the role of the Governor, who functions as chancellor, in the appointment process of VCs.

The state, represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson, also urged the apex court to clarify that the Madras High Court may proceed to hear its application to vacate the stay on July 14, despite the pending challenge before the Supreme Court.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for UGC, opposed this request, pointing out that Tamil Nadu has also filed a transfer petition seeking to move all related matters to the Supreme Court. “You cannot seek transfer of the case to the top court and simultaneously push for orders from the high court,” argued Mehta, adding the state laws are “absolutely repugnant to the UGC regulations”.

The bench refrained from expressing any view on this aspect and restricted itself to issuing formal notices on the state’s plea against the high court order.

The high court’s May 21 ruling had come on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer who challenged the constitutional validity of the state’s amendments. The petitioner argued that the laws violated UGC regulations, which are central in nature and mandate that the appointment of VCs must be made by the chancellor – the Governor. The petitioner further invoked the principle that in case of a conflict between central and state laws in the Concurrent List, the central law prevails.

The high court, while hearing the matter during the summer recess, granted an interim stay on the operation of the state laws, effectively halting their implementation. Among other changes, the laws had removed the Governor’s authority in appointing VCs and empowered the state to constitute a search committee, determine eligibility criteria and even remove VCs.

In its appeal before the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government contended that the high court acted with “undue haste” and stayed the operation of nine statutes enacted by the state legislature, many of which had received deemed assent as per the Supreme Court’s judgment dated April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu Vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. The amendments passed by the Assembly in April followed the Supreme Court’s rebuke to the Governor over delays in assenting to pending bills, most of which pertained to the appointment of VCs.

The April 8 ruling by the Supreme Court had struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi’s controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent. The matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.

The state, in its special leave petition, argued that the high court’s stay amounted to granting final relief at the interim stage. It pointed out that the high court passed its order without giving the state adequate opportunity to respond, file a counter-affidavit, or present its arguments on the merits.

The petition also questioned the maintainability of the PIL and highlighted that it was heard during the court’s vacation period despite the absence of any demonstrated urgency. The petitioner, the state alleged, was a functionary of a political party, and the matter was listed in contravention of the high court’s own notification that restricted vacation benches to “very urgent” matters only.

Citing the 2014 Constitution Bench ruling in State of West Bengal Vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the state reminded the top court that there is a strong presumption of constitutionality in favour of laws passed by legislatures and courts must exercise caution in granting interim relief in challenges to such statutes.