Setback for MK Stalin – Madras HC imposes interim stay on Tamil Nadu’s power to appoint vice-chancellors

The Madras High Court on Wednesday evening granted an interim stay on a contentious provision that empowers the Tamil Nadu government to appoint vice-chancellors to state-run universities, halting the state’s recent legislative amendments that transferred this authority from the Governor to the Chief Minister.

A Division Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshmi Narayanan passed the stay order despite strong opposition from the Tamil Nadu government, which urged the court to adjourn the matter until Friday. The government argued that the case was being taken up prematurely, especially since a related petition is pending before the Supreme Court. However, the court proceeded with the hearing and issued the interim relief.

The petition challenging the amendments was filed by advocate and BJP functionary K Venkatachalapathy through a public interest litigation (PIL). The petitioner contended that the state’s legislative changes violated the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act and its regulations, which require that vice-chancellors be appointed through a search-cum-selection committee with the approval of the Chancellor—traditionally the Governor. The petitioner further argued that the amendments were arbitrary and lacked transparency, undermining the autonomy of educational institutions by vesting appointment powers in political hands.

The Tamil Nadu government had enacted ten amendment Acts following a landmark Supreme Court ruling that allowed the state legislature to re-enact bills pending gubernatorial assent, declaring them “deemed to have been assented” under Article 142 of the Constitution. These amendments replaced references to the “Chancellor” with the “Government,” effectively removing the Governor’s role in university governance.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate P Wilson, representing the state, maintained that the Governor’s role as Chancellor remained intact and that the amendments did not contravene UGC regulations, which do not explicitly mandate that Governors must be Chancellors. Wilson also alleged that the petitioner had submitted a forged Gazette notification, calling for an inquiry by the state’s vigilance authorities.

The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, countered that education matters should be insulated from political influence and vested in an authority above partisan considerations. He urged the court to stay the amendments, citing precedents where courts have intervened to restrain arbitrary executive actions.

The interim stay marks a significant legal setback for the ruling DMK government, which has faced sustained opposition from Governor RN Ravi over these amendments. The Governor had earlier objected to the state’s move, arguing that it undermined constitutional conventions and the federal balance.

The case underscores the ongoing tussle between the state government and the Governor’s office over control of academic institutions, raising broader questions about the autonomy of universities and the role of political authorities in their administration.

The Madras High Court has directed both the state and central governments to file detailed responses. The matter is slated for further hearing in the coming days, even as the Supreme Court considers whether to transfer the case for adjudication alongside related petitions.