BREAKING | Madras High Court Stays TN Amendment Taking Away Governor's Power To Appoint Vice Chancellors To State-Run Universities

The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed the amendments brought in by the Tamil Nadu government, taking away the Governor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to State-run Universities.

The State amendments were made pursuant to the recent Supreme Court judgment defining the powers of the Governor. 

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 Court passed the interim order despite repeated protests by Senior Advocate P Wilson, informing the court that the State had filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to transfer the case to be heard with connected matters already pending before the Apex Court.

Wilson informed the court that he had made an oral mention before the Chief Justice of India, who had permitted Wilson to inform the high court of the pending petition.

The petitioner, K Venkatachalapathy had claimed that the twelve amendments brought in by the State Government were repugnant to the Central Law ie, the UGC Regulations. He argued that the UGC Regulations mandate that the Chancellor appoint Vice-Chancellors from a panel recommended by the Search Committee and by vesting this power in the State Government, the amendments were overriding the role of the Chancellor. 

Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, argued that in the event of a conflict between the Central and the State legislation on matters pertaining to the concurrent list, the Central Legislation shall prevail. Thus, claiming that the amendments made by the State were on matters already covered by the Central Legislation (UGC Regulation), the petitioner argued that the same was unconstitutional, inconsistent, and thus untenable in law. 

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department, opposed the plea and argued that there was no urgency in the plea necessitating an interim stay. He repeatedly informed the court that the transfer petition would be taken up by the Supreme Court in 2-3 days and the present plea could be taken up by the High Court after a decision on the transfer petition. 

The court, however, rejected Wilson's request and asked Naidu to continue making his submissions. 

During the hearing, Wilson also contended that the Gazette notification relied on by the petitioners was a forged one and not the one passed by the State of Tamil Nadu. he urged the court to record his objection to the same and suggested that a CB-CID enquiry be conducted to investigate how such a forged gazette was filed before the court. 

"The gazette attached is a forged one. It's not our gazette. A CB-CID inquiry has to be ordered. Lordships should not act on it. How did this gazette come into his hand? We need to see it. Not just the petitioner but the advocate also would be answerable," Wilson argued. 

Meanwhile, the Advocate General argued that the courts would have to decide a constitutional point which could not be gone into without affording an opportunity to file a counter. He also submitted that the Supreme Court has ruled against staying legislation as a matter of course unless it was ex facie illegal. He urged the court to list the stay petition after the vacations, allowing the State to file a counter to it. He added that if the State was not allowed to file a counter, it would seem that the court had pre-decided the issue. 

The court, however, continued to hear the matter and passed the orders accordingly.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

Case Title: K Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty v The State of Tamil Nadu