In a significant development, the Madras High Court has stayed the operation of the Tamil Nadu government’s amendment that removed the Governor’s authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors in state-run universities. The court found the amendment to be in direct conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations and termed it “glaringly unconstitutional.”
The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the impugned amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer, the bench observed.
The order was passed by the vacation bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayan. The judges stated that even though the High Court was in vacation, the seriousness of the matter necessitated immediate intervention. They made it clear that while the amendment is not stayed in its entirety, only the portion that strips the Governor of the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors has been put on hold.
“We are therefore of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of staying an unconstitutional legislation. In fact, we do not propose to stay the operation of the amending Acts in toto. We confine ourselves to staying that part of the legislation which takes away the power of the Governor to make the appointment. In fact, we do not even propose to stay the constitution of the search committees. If interim stay is granted, the position that originally obtained will revive,” the court explained.
The court noted that in previous cases, courts have granted quo warranto where appointments of Vice-Chancellors were found to be in violation of UGC norms. The bench found the current matter to be of similar gravity and determined that allowing the legislation to proceed would harm public interest.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Stays Tamil Nadu Law Taking Away Governor’s Role in Appointing Vice Chancellors
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing in the case, argued that there was no urgency warranting intervention by a vacation bench. However, the court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the concept of access to justice cannot be limited by court holidays.
“It is true that the High Court is on Vacation and that we are sitting as Vacation Bench Judges. To us, it should not make any difference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has observed that Court Vacation sittings should be rechristened 'partial working days'. We take inspiration from the said observation. Judges can be on vacation, Courts should not be on vacation. Access to justice should always be available. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes. That is why we propose to intervene then and there,” the bench stated.
The court also addressed Wilson’s argument that the bench was indirectly reviewing a previous decision by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case. The judges firmly rejected this notion and stressed their adherence to judicial discipline.
Shri P.Wilson made a preposterous submission that we were virtually reviewing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- The Governor of Tamil Nadu. No submission can be more outrageous than this. We are mindful of our position. We know that we have to give the highest respect to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not need lectures from Shri P.Wilson on this score. We believe in judicial discipline, the court remarked.
Wilson also sought an adjournment on the ground that a transfer petition was pending before the Supreme Court. The court refused, stating that the Supreme Court had not barred it from hearing the case and that the presence of conflicting legislation made immediate action necessary.
“If the Hon'ble Supreme Court had orally injuncted us from taking up this case and the same had been brought to our notice, we would have unhesitatingly kept our hands off. But, no such development has taken place. That is why we are unable to accede to the request made by the learned Advocate General for adjourning the case. We are on short point. When we notice that the impugned amending Acts fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are unable to mechanically adjourn the proceedings. It is this primary consideration that impels us to grant interim relief,” the court concluded.
The stay order marks a temporary halt in the implementation of the controversial amendment and revives the earlier system where the Governor played a key role in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. The court’s decision reaffirms the supremacy of constitutional and regulatory compliance in higher education governance.
