‘Ought to have been given reasonable time’: SC sets aside Madras HC order staying Tamil Nadu bills on V-C appointment

The SC asked the HC Chief Justice to hear the matter himself or allot it to any bench he may deem appropriate, and hear it after granting reasonable time to the state to file counter affidavit.

The top court also recorded the assurance given by the state government that it will not make any appointments to the V-C post till the matter is decided by the HC.

“In light of the fair stand taken by the petitioners, we request the HC to make an endeavour to decide the main case within six weeks,” the order added.

The state had challenged the May 21, 2025, judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court, which had stayed the operation of 10 bills that essentially took away from the Chancellor the power of appointment of Vice Chancellors of universities, and vested the same in the state government.
Senior Counsel A M Singhvi and P Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, contended that the matter was taken up during vacation, not giving the state enough time to present its case.

Wilson said the matter was initially taken up on May 14, 2025, when the state said it had filed a petition seeking transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court. “The judge posted it to the next week and despite our arguments, repeatedly saying we have not filed a counter affidavit, the judge switched off the mic and passed an interim order… Something unheard of in the manner it was conducted,” said Wilson.

Advocate D S Naidu, who appeared for the original petitioner on whose plea the HC stayed the bills, objected to this and said it is “unfair and unethical attributing motive to the court if they (the state government) don’t have a point.”

Justice Bagchi asked why it was taken up in the vacation when it was already a pending matter. “Why in the vacation bench? This was not filed during vacation, this was already pending matter…Vacation court sitting, question of constitutionality of some university statutes, what is the tearing hurry (to decide it during the vacation itself)?,” asked Justice Bagchi. Naidu pointed out that the urgency was because the state was going to make the appointments.

The senior counsel said that the HC, after noting that the state government had already constituted search committees for the appointment, had asked whether it was willing to put the process on hold till the matter is disposed of but the state expressed its unwillingness to do so.

The CJI said that even if some illegal appointments were made, the HC could have set those aside.