The Madras High Court came down heavily on Senior Advocate and Member of Rajya Sabha from DMK, P Wilson, while staying the amendments brought to the University statutes of Tamil Nadu to denude the Governor of the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors for 18 state Universities.

P Wilson appeared for the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department of the State Government, while the Advocate General appeared for the State Government.

The Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed in its interim order, "We say with utmost sadness and regret that the approach of Shri P.Wilson was one of obstruction and not assistance."

Adjournment

The Court, at the outset, rejected the plea by Wilson and the Advocate General for adjournment of the hearing. The Court clarified that when the writ petition was listed for hearing on May 14 and was admitted, they were put on notice and informed that the petition for interim relief will be taken up on May 21.

Wilson also submitted that a mention was made before the Supreme Court seeking urgent listing of the Transfer Petition filed by the State, and that the Supreme Court indicated that the High Court may be apprised of the said fact.

The High Court rejected that argument by saying, "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 a 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".

Vacation Court

The High Court rejected the argument that the vacation bench of the Court shall not grant interim relief. The Court notes that Wilson was not willing to assist the Court when it proceeded to consider the prayer for interim relief, while even the Advocate General offered assistance on legal issues.

The Court held, "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 then observes, "In our respectful view, a week was more than sufficient for the State to file its written response. We say with utmost sadness and regret that the approach of Shri P.Wilson was one of obstruction and not assistance. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General even while insisting that the case should be adjourned, offered his assistance by addressing the Court on all the legal issues."

Do Not Need Lectures

The Court termed "preposterous" the submission made by Wilson 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.

Staying of Farm Laws

While rejecting the argument of the State that a statute cannot be suspended or stayed, the Court mentioned the fact that Wilson had appeared for the petitioners when the Apex Court stayed the laws.

The Court observed, "The operation of the farm laws were suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an interim order on 12.01.2021 in Rakesh Vaishnav -vs- Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 590. 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".

Reprimanded By Another Bench

In October, 2024, Wilson was reprimanded by another Bench of the High Court after Wilson supposedly sought the recusal of one of the judges from hearing a batch of cases.

"Do all these gimmicks in the Parliament, not before us. We are not entertaining it", the Bench had orally remarked. (read report)

It was later clarified through an affidavit that Wilson did not intend to seek recusal of the Judge. Based on the same, the bench removed remarks made against Wilson in its order.

Justice GR SwaminathanJustice V. Lakshminarayanan

Verdictum News Desk