Supreme Court Issues Notice on Tamil Nadu Government's VC Appointment Challenge
The Supreme Court has taken notice of a petition from the Tamil Nadu government challenging a Madras High Court ruling that restricts the state's authority to appoint Vice Chancellors. The case raises significant questions about the role of the Governor in these appointments and the constitutional validity of recent state laws. Senior advocates representing the state have urged clarity on the matter, while the UGC's Solicitor General has raised concerns about conflicts with central regulations. This legal battle highlights the ongoing tensions between state and central authorities in educational governance.
| Jul 4, 2025, 13:58 IST
Supreme Court's Notice to Tamil Nadu Government
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the central government, the office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government. This petition contests a ruling from the Madras High Court that halted laws transferring the authority to appoint Vice Chancellors (VCs) of state universities from the Governor to the state government. A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan sought responses while hearing the appeal filed by the state government against the interim order issued by the High Court on May 21. The High Court had restrained the implementation of recent state laws aimed at reducing the Governor's role, who acts as the Chancellor, in the appointment process of VCs.
Legal Arguments Presented
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson, representing the state, urged the Supreme Court to clarify whether the Madras High Court could hear an application to lift the stay on July 14, despite the pending challenge in the Supreme Court. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the UGC, opposed this request, arguing that Tamil Nadu had also filed a transfer petition seeking to move all related matters to the Supreme Court. Mehta contended that one cannot seek to transfer a case to the apex court while simultaneously pressuring the High Court for an order. He emphasized that the state laws are in direct conflict with UGC regulations.
Court's Stance on the Matter
The bench refrained from expressing any opinion on this matter and limited itself to issuing a formal notice on the state's petition against the High Court's order. The decision from the High Court on May 21 arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an attorney challenging the constitutional validity of the state's amendments. The petitioner argued that the laws violate UGC regulations, which are of a central nature and mandate that the appointment of VCs should be made by the Chancellor - the Governor.