Madras High Court stays Tamil Nadu amendments on vice-chancellor appointments

The PIL challenged the constitutional validity of the state amendments to 10 university Acts on 56 grounds, primarily arguing that the changes were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which prescribe the process for Vice-Chancellor appointments. The petitioner contended that the legislation compromised the autonomy of universities and allowed for excessive political interference.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu asserted that the role of the Governor—as Chancellor of State universities—ought to remain apolitical, much like the Speaker in a legislature. “Universities must be insulated from political power,” he said. “The chancellor, being above politics, should continue to guide the academic institutions free of government overreach.”

The court’s interim stay sparked strong objections from the state government. Advocate-General P S Raman and senior counsel P Wilson, representing the Chief Secretary and Higher Education Secretary, argued there was no urgency warranting a hearing during the court’s vacation. “Only the process for appointments has begun. The last date to receive applications is June 5. The apprehension that something will happen tomorrow is unfounded,” the AG said.

They pointed out that the state had already filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to consolidate all similar PILs challenging the amendments. The apex court, according to Wilson, had orally instructed the state to inform the HC about the pending transfer plea. “The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the broader issue. For the High Court to press ahead despite this is judicial impropriety,” Wilson told the Bench. “We are being compelled to argue here even as the matter awaits consideration before the CJI.”

The Higher Education Secretary, C Samayamoorthy, also submitted a memo asserting that the petition was politically motivated, filed by a functionary of the opposition party. He argued that there was no grave urgency and that the State ought to have been allowed sufficient time to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the 56 points raised.

Wilson went further, alleging “forum shopping” by the petitioner, suggesting that the choice of approaching the second vacation bench was deliberate. “Havens are not going to fall. This is a move designed only to stall the process. There is no urgency,” he said. He also noted that the amendments received de facto assent from the Governor following the intervention of the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings.

Defending the legality of the amendments, the AG argued that laws enacted by the State legislature prevail over UGC regulations, so long as they do not contravene a central law. “A state legislation can only be stayed when it is glaringly unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary. Neither is the case here,” he said, adding that the UGC lacks the authority to constitute search committees for vice-chancellor appointments. Despite these arguments, the Division Bench held firm.