Madras High Court Interim Order Reinstates Governor VC Appointment Powers, Clashes with Supreme Court Ruling

Madras High Court Interim Order Reinstates Governor VC Appointment Powers, Clashes with Supreme Court Ruling

Why in News?
The Madras High Court’s recent interim order has effectively restored the Tamil Nadu Governor’s authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in state universities, creating a constitutional conflict with last month’s Supreme Court verdict that upheld state government’s amended Acts on VC appointments. This judicial clash has left nearly a dozen universities without permanent leadership, exacerbating the ongoing tussle between the state government and Governor-Chancellor.

Key Developments

1. Supreme Court’s Earlier Verdict

   • Last month, the SC upheld Tamil Nadu’s amended Acts granting the state government VC appointment powers

   • Ruling came after the Governor’s prolonged delay in approving relevant bills

2. Madras HC’s Controversial Interim Order

   • Vacation Bench (Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan) stayed the state’s amended Acts

   • Restored Governor’s appointment powers pending final judgment

   • Cited violation of UGC Regulations 2008 (particularly Regulation 23) governing VC selection process

3. Legal Precedents Invoked

   • Referred to cases like Dr. Snehalatha P.S. vs APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University

   • Emphasized that VC appointments must follow established search committee procedures

Core Legal Conflict

• State’s Position: Argued it adopted UGC Regulations with exemption for Regulation 23

• HC’s Rebuttal: Called this exemption “glaringly unconstitutional”

• Federalism Question: Whether state legislation can override central education regulations

Critical Observations

1. Judicial Propriety Concerns

   • HC passed order despite state’s pending transfer petition before SC

   • Granted interim relief without allowing state to file counter-affidavit

2. Practical Consequences

   • 12+ universities remain without permanent VCs

   • Academic and administrative functions disrupted

   • Creates uncertainty in higher education governance

Way Forward

1. Supreme Court Intervention Needed

   • To resolve conflict between state laws and UGC regulations

   • Clarify limits of gubernatorial powers in education matters

2. Balanced Approach Required

   • Respect state’s legislative autonomy

   • Maintain minimum national education standards

3. Urgent Resolution

   • Expedited hearing to end leadership vacuum

   • Clear guidelines for future VC appointments

Conclusion
The Madras HC’s order has intensified the constitutional tension between state autonomy and central regulations in education governance. With conflicting precedents like Kalyani Mathivanan and Jagdish Prasad Sharma in play, the Supreme Court must provide definitive clarity to prevent further institutional paralysis in Tamil Nadu’s higher education sector.

5 Key Questions & Answers
Q1: What triggered the current VC appointment crisis in Tamil Nadu?
A1: Conflict between state government’s amended Acts and Governor’s refusal to approve them, exacerbated by conflicting court orders.

Q2: Which legal provisions are at the heart of this dispute?
A2: UGC Regulations 2008 (especially Regulation 23) versus state government’s amended university Acts.

Q3: How has this impacted Tamil Nadu’s universities?
A3: Over 12 universities lack permanent VCs, affecting administration and academics.

Q4: What are the judicial propriety concerns raised?
A4: HC’s hurried interim order despite pending SC petition, and without hearing state’s response.

Q5: What’s the ultimate solution needed?
A5: Supreme Court must conclusively decide if state laws can override UGC regulations in VC appointments.