Kerala Governor Questions Supreme Court's Authority on University Vice-Chancellor Appointments

Governor's Concerns Over Judicial Authority

On Sunday, Kerala's Governor Rajendra Arlekar expressed his concerns regarding the Supreme Court's ruling from December 11, which involved the selection of vice-chancellors for two universities. He emphasized that the power to make such appointments lies with the chancellor, as outlined in the University Grants Commission Act.

As the ex-officio chancellor of state universities, Arlekar criticized the trend of judicial bodies intervening in appointments that he believes should be under the chancellor's jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's December decision came amid a deadlock between the state government and the governor regarding these appointments, leading the court to take charge of selecting vice-chancellors for the Kerala University of Digital Sciences and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.

A committee led by retired Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was established to recommend candidates for these positions due to the lack of agreement between the involved parties.

During an event in Thiruvananthapuram, Arlekar criticized the encroachment of one institution over another's responsibilities within a democratic framework. He reiterated that the authority to amend the Constitution lies with Parliament and the elected legislature, while the judiciary's role is to interpret, not amend, the Constitution.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously upheld the chancellor's authority in a 2023 ruling concerning Kannur University, where the reappointment of a vice-chancellor was annulled due to government interference.

Arlekar argued that the Supreme Court's current actions seem to overlook established provisions, which he views as a form of judicial overreach.

The controversy began with a notification from the former governor on November 27, 2024, appointing Ciza Thomas and K Sivaprasad as interim vice-chancellors for the digital and technological universities, respectively.

On May 19, a single bench of the Kerala High Court annulled these appointments but allowed the interim vice-chancellors to remain in their roles until May 27 to prevent disruption.

A subsequent division bench upheld this decision, stating that the governor could only appoint temporary vice-chancellors for a maximum of six months and only based on recommendations from the state government.

The High Court instructed the state government to submit a list of qualified candidates for temporary appointments until permanent vice-chancellors could be appointed.

In response, the state government provided a panel of three nominees for each position. However, instead of selecting from this panel, the governor opted to approach the Supreme Court.

On July 31, the Supreme Court ruled that the Kerala governor had the authority to appoint temporary vice-chancellors until permanent appointments were finalized.

Following this ruling, Arlekar issued a notification on August 1 for the reappointment of Thomas and Sivaprasad, citing the Supreme Court's directive.

In August, the Kerala government challenged Arlekar's decision to appoint Thomas and Sivaprasad as interim vice-chancellors in the Supreme Court.