IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

23 May 2025 : Misplaced urgency

Editorial 2: ​Misplaced urgency

Context

The Madras High Court has in effect undermined a Supreme Court ruling 

 

Introduction

The Madras High Court has stayed Tamil Nadu’s amended laws empowering the State to appoint Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs), restoring this authority to the Governor-Chancellor. This decision challenges the State’s autonomy and reignites a constitutional debate on whether University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations can override State legislation, especially amid conflicting Supreme Court precedents on V-C appointments.

 

Madras High Court Halts State’s Power to Appoint Vice-Chancellors

  • The Madras High Court stayed the operation of Tamil Nadu's amended laws that allowed the State government to appoint Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) in 18 State universities.
  • This interim order effectively pauses the momentum gained after the recent Supreme Court judgment, which had granted deemed assent to 10 Bills delayed by the Governor.

 

Governor’s Powers Temporarily Restored

  • The court’s ruling reinstates the Governor-Chancellor's authority to appoint V-Cs, which the contested Bills had aimed to remove.
  • As a result, appointments to nearly a dozen universities remain on hold, leading to a continued administrative stalemate.

 

Legal Basis for the Interim Relief

  • The High Court’s decision was based on a petition arguing that the amended Acts violate existing Supreme Court rulings on V-C appointments.
  • Key precedents cited:
    • Dr. Sreejith P.S. vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University)
    • Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs State of Gujarat (Sardar Patel University)
  • Both judgments emphasized the need to comply with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which outlines norms for search committee composition and appointment processes.

 

State’s Argument Rejected by the Court

  • The Tamil Nadu government argued that it had adopted the UGC Regulations in 2021, excluding Regulation 7.3.
  • The High Court dismissed this claim, asserting that removing the Chancellor’s role in appointments is clearly unconstitutional and legally untenable.

 

Concerns About Judicial Overreach

  • The urgency with which the Bench acted to invalidate the amended Acts has been criticized.
  • The court:
    • Overlooked the State counsel’s submission that a petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Court was pending.
    • Was informed that the Supreme Court had asked to be kept apprised, yet this was not factored into the decision.
    • Issued the interim order without giving the State sufficient time to respond with a counter affidavit.

 

The Larger Constitutional Question

  • The situation reflects a deeper legal dilemma:
    • Can UGC Regulations, issued by a subordinate authority, override State legislation enacted under constitutional powers?
  • Past conflicting judgments — such as Kalyani Mathivanan and Jagdish Prasad Sharma — make this an unresolved issue.
  • The Supreme Court, if it takes up the case, may need to offer a final interpretation to settle this constitutional question definitively.

 

Conclusion

The interim order has deepened the stalemate in Tamil Nadu’s higher education, leaving key universities leaderless. More importantly, it underscores the unresolved question: can subordinate regulations like those of the UGC supersede State laws? The matter now awaits Supreme Court clarity, which is essential to settle the jurisdictional conflict and restore functional order in university governance.