The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Union government, the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the Tamil Nadu Governor’s office on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging a Madras High Court order that stayed the implementation of newly enacted state laws stripping the Governor of powers to appoint vice-chancellors (VCs) in state universities.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan sought responses from the respondents while hearing the state’s appeal against the High Court’s interim order dated May 21. The order, passed by a vacation bench, had stayed amendments to multiple university Acts that curtailed the Governor’s role—who acts as Chancellor—in the appointment of VCs.
Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P. Wilson urged the Supreme Court to permit the High Court to proceed with hearing the state’s application for vacating the stay on July 14. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the UGC, objected, citing the state’s pending transfer petition before the apex court seeking to consolidate all related matters.
“You cannot seek transfer of the case to the top court and simultaneously push for orders from the high court,” Mehta argued, asserting that the state’s laws were “absolutely repugnant to UGC regulations.”
The bench refrained from commenting on this contention and limited its intervention to issuing formal notices, without granting any interim relief to the state.
The High Court’s stay order arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an advocate who challenged the constitutional validity of the state amendments. The PIL argued that the laws conflicted with UGC regulations, which require that the Chancellor—typically the Governor—must appoint VCs. The petitioner invoked the constitutional principle that central laws prevail over state laws in case of conflict in the Concurrent List.
The challenged laws not only removed the Governor’s authority in VC appointments but also empowered the state government to form search committees, set eligibility criteria, and even remove VCs. The amendments were passed in April 2024, following the Supreme Court’s rebuke to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying assent to several bills, many of which pertained to university governance.
In its appeal, the Tamil Nadu government contended that the High Court acted with “undue haste” in staying the operation of nine legislations without allowing the state a chance to respond or present counter-arguments. The petition also raised doubts about the PIL’s maintainability, highlighting that it was heard during the summer recess despite no evident urgency. The state claimed the petitioner was affiliated with a political party and the matter did not meet the High Court’s own criteria for hearing urgent cases during vacation.
The state further cited the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, which held that several re-enacted bills were deemed to have received presidential assent and questioned the Governor’s move to withhold or reserve them. That dispute is currently the subject of a presidential reference pending before the apex court.
Relying on the 2014 Constitution Bench ruling in State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, the Tamil Nadu government argued that laws enacted by legislatures carry a presumption of constitutionality and courts must be restrained in granting interim relief that effectively grants final outcomes.
The matter is likely to be heard further after the respondents file their replies to the Supreme Court’s notice.
