Tamil Nadu Government Appeals Supreme Court Ruling on Vice-Chancellor Appointments

Tamil Nadu's Legal Challenge

On Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu administration approached the Supreme Court to contest a ruling from the Madras High Court that suspended nine legislative acts concerning the appointment of vice-chancellors in state universities.

Earlier, on May 21, the High Court had issued a stay on these acts, despite a Supreme Court decision on April 8 that stated these bills would be considered as having received the governor's approval retroactively from the date they were re-passed by the legislature.

These legislative measures primarily focus on higher education, including proposals to eliminate the governor's role as chancellor of state universities.

Following the April 8 ruling, the state government enacted these laws.

However, a public interest litigation was submitted to the Madras High Court on May 12, questioning the constitutional validity of these acts. Subsequently, on May 21, the High Court stayed the acts, citing that the 2018 University Grants Commission Regulations would take precedence over state laws due to the doctrine of repugnancy.

This doctrine, outlined in Article 254 of the Constitution, asserts that if a state law conflicts with a central law, the latter prevails, rendering the state law void in that context.

In its Supreme Court petition, the Tamil Nadu government argued that there exists a strong presumption of constitutionality for laws enacted by the legislature.

According to the petition, "Courts should exercise caution in issuing interim orders regarding the constitutionality of provisions, especially against the strong presumption of constitutionality." It further noted that the High Court's interim order halted provisions that transferred the vice-chancellor appointment authority from the chancellor to the government.

The petition also highlighted that a vacation bench of the High Court had entertained a writ petition from a lawyer affiliated with a political party, and an order was made without allowing the state government an opportunity to present its defense.

"The case was heard during vacation hours until 6:30 PM, beyond regular court hours, leading to the issuance of the contested order," the state government stated.

Additionally, the petition raised concerns regarding judicial propriety and the need for a more restrained approach.

The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling was a response to a petition from the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi delayed action on several bills for over three years, ultimately rejecting some and forwarding others to the president.

Out of the ten re-enacted bills sent to the president in November 2023, one was approved, seven were rejected, and two remain pending.

The Supreme Court deemed the governor's decision to withhold assent from these ten bills, some pending since January 2020, and subsequently refer them to the president as "illegal and erroneous."

It ruled that these ten bills would be considered to have received the governor's assent from the date they were re-passed by the legislature and nullified any actions taken by the president based on the governor's referral.

In its extensive 414-page judgment, the Supreme Court also mandated a three-month timeframe for the president to either approve or reject such bills.