Madras High Court Knocks On The Head Of DMK MP And Counsel P. Wilson In Case On Governor’s Role In VC Appointments

On 21 May 2025, the Madras High Court firmly rejected the contention that its scrutiny of recent legislative amendments—removing the Tamil Nadu Governor’s role in appointing Vice-Chancellors to state universities—would amount to interfering with a Supreme Court ruling on gubernatorial powers.

A Vacation Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan had, a day earlier, granted a temporary stay on the enforcement of these amendments, which had reassigned the Governor’s authority in Vice-Chancellor appointments to the State Government.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the State’s Higher Education Department, argued that the laws in question had received ‘deemed assent’ from the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. This was based on a previous Supreme Court ruling that came in response to a petition filed by the State Government over Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in granting assent to various State Bills. That ruling had outlined constitutional boundaries on the Governor’s powers.

However, the High Court took strong exception to Wilson’s suggestion that the Court should not entertain the plea due to the pending transfer petition in the apex court. The judges found this assertion not only misplaced but offensive.

“Mr. Wilson’s claim that we are effectively reviewing a Supreme Court judgment is outrageous,” the Court remarked.

The court further added “We say with utmost sadness and regret that the approach of Shri. P. Wilson was one of obstruction and not assistance.”

“We are fully aware of our jurisdiction and deeply respect the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We do not require lectures on this matter.”, the court said.

The Bench clarified that the Supreme Court had not examined the constitutional validity of the amendments themselves and, therefore, the High Court was within its rights to assess their legality. Judicial discipline, the judges stated, demanded adherence to precedent—but not blind submission where constitutional questions remain unresolved.

They noted that when the Advocate General claimed that the issues raised had already been addressed in the apex court’s verdict, the judges asked for specific references. The Advocate General, after a failed attempt, withdrew the claim.

Addressing the argument that a transfer plea was pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court clarified that there had been no stay issued preventing it from proceeding with the matter. “Had the Supreme Court instructed us, even orally, to halt proceedings, we would have respected that immediately. But no such instruction exists,” the Bench observed.

The judges also emphasized that the matter warranted immediate attention, as the challenged amendments appeared to contradict existing University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.

Rejecting the claim that there was no urgency for a vacation bench to grant relief, the Court asserted that justice must remain accessible regardless of whether the Court is officially on break. “While judges may be on vacation, courts cannot afford to be. We act on serious constitutional concerns whenever they arise,” the Bench said, referencing remarks by the Chief Justice of India encouraging courts to treat vacation periods as partial working days.

The Court also dismissed requests for more time to respond to the petition, observing that a full week had already been provided—sufficient for addressing purely legal issues. Criticizing P. Wilson’s approach as obstructionist, the judges contrasted it with the Advocate General’s constructive participation in the legal debate, despite disagreeing on the adjournment.

Concluding that the legislative amendments were “manifestly unconstitutional,” the Court granted interim relief, stating “The degree of constitutional and legal conflict posed by the amendments is so apparent that ignoring it would be unjustifiable. Allowing this process to continue would risk causing irreversible harm and undermine public interest.”