Home News Supreme Court To Hear TN Govt’s Plea On VC Appointment Laws Stayed...

Supreme Court To Hear TN Govt’s Plea On VC Appointment Laws Stayed By Madras High Court

On 4 July 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Tamil Nadu government’s challenge to a 21 May 2025 order from the Madras High Court, which had stayed the implementation of nine state laws enacted in 2020 concerning the appointment process for Vice Chancellors in state universities.

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan issued notices to the original petitioners from the High Court proceedings after listening to senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, who represented the state government.

These nine laws had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court using its special authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, after ruling that the Governor’s decision to refer the bills to the President was unconstitutional.

Despite taking up the case, the apex court declined to suspend the High Court’s stay order. The case has now been clubbed with an earlier transfer petition. The bench also allowed the Tamil Nadu government to request an expedited hearing before the Chief Justice of India.

The High Court’s interim stay was granted in response to a writ petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy, a Tirunelveli-based lawyer. The court found that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018 took precedence over the state’s legislation, based on the constitutional principle of repugnancy.

The petitioner before the High Court had challenged the state’s laws for allegedly conflicting with UGC guidelines, particularly regarding the appointment procedure of Vice Chancellors.

In its special leave petition, prepared by senior advocate P. Wilson, the DMK-led government argued that courts should generally refrain from granting interim relief in cases questioning the constitutional validity of legislation, citing a 2014 Supreme Court judgment. The state asserted that the interim stay had effectively granted final relief at an early stage, as it stripped the government of the power to appoint Vice Chancellors — authority that had previously been moved from the Governor to the state through the contested laws.

Additionally, the state criticized the timing and procedure of the High Court’s stay. It noted that the petition had been admitted during the court’s vacation period without any demonstration of urgency, allegedly in violation of an 29 April 2025 notification restricting vacation hearings to extremely urgent cases.

The government further contended that the High Court’s vacation bench did not provide sufficient opportunity to present its case or respond to the petition before staying the laws. It also emphasized that the statutes in question had already received deemed assent from the Supreme Court in the landmark State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case.

Lastly, the state accused the High Court of rushing through the interim hearing and basing its decision on irrelevant considerations.

(With inputs From Deccan Herald)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.