"Ex-Facie Unconstitutional": Madras High Court While Staying State Amendment Denuding Governor Of Power To Appoint Vice-Chancellors For Universities

The Madras High Court has held that the amendments brought to the University statutes of Tamil Nadu to denude the Governor/Chancellor of the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors for 18 state Universities are ex-facie unconstitutional.

The Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held, "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 Writ Petition filed by a practicing Lawyer, K. Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty, challenged the statutes amending 18 statutes pertaining to different universities on the primary ground that they are in direct conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018.

By the impugned Acts, the provisions in the principal Acts pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in the Universities had been amended by substituting the word "Government" for the word "Chancellor". In other words, the power of the Chancellor / Governor of the State to appoint the Vice Chancellor from the names submitted by the search committees had been taken away, and this power had been conferred on the State Government.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate General P.S.Raman appeared for the State, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan for the UGC and Senior Advocate P Wilson appeared for the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department.

UGC Regulations

The Court noted that the State Universities have been in receipt of financial assistance from the UGC. It held that having adopted the 2018 UGC Regulations, the State cannot adopt a procedure that militates against the said Regulations in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellors. "We are clearly of the view that the impugned amendments suffer from the vice of repugnancy and run counter to the line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned earlier", the Court held.

The Court dismissed the submission that the said UGC regulation has been challenged by the State before the Supreme Court. "It is true that the State of Tamil Nadu has filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the 2018 Regulations. The Writ Petition is said to be pending. Admittedly, no interim order has been obtained", the Court noted.

The Court held that it has the power to suspend unconstitutional laws. It referred to the Farm Laws case and noted, "Interestingly, Shri P.Wilson, who is now opposing the grant of interim relief was the counsel for a set of petitioners therein and welcomed the proposal to stay the implementation of the laws".

"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 held.

Vacation Bench Judges

The Court rejected the argument that the Court, while on vacation, ought not to grant interim relief.

"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. Pure questions of law have been addressed", the Court held.

Supreme Court's Judgment In Tamil Nadu Governor Case

The Court termed "preposterous" the submission made by the State that the High Court is virtually reviewing the Supreme Court's judgment in the aforesaid case.

"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 held.

Direction

"We therefore stay the operation of the impugned amendment Acts to the extent they take away the power of appointment of the Vice Chancellors of the petition mentioned Universities from the hands of the Chancellor and vest the same in the Government", the Court ordered.

It directed that counter affidavit be filed and posted the matter after eight weeks.

Cause Title: K.Venkatachalapathy @ Kutty v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (WMP No. 20576 of 2025 in WP No. 18374 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and Advocate V.R. Shanmuganathan

Respondent: Advocate General P.S.Raman, Additional Solicitor General Advocate AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Advocate P.Wilson and Advocates Edwin Prabakar and V.Sudha

Click here to read/download Order