T.N. legislature fully empowered to take away power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from Governor: State tells Madras High Court

The Tamil Nadu government argued before the Madras High Court that it was the State legislature that enacted laws empowering the Governor, in his capacity as Chancellor, to appoint vice-chancellors to various State-run universities and therefore the same legislature had the power to amend those laws and appoint the government as the appointing authority.

The submission was made in the counter affidavit filed by Higher Education Minister P. Shankar before the First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan. The dissent was filed in response to a writ petition dated 2025 challenging the validity of the nine amendment bills passed by the Parliament in relation to various universities.

Solicitor General PS Raman and senior counsel P. Wilson told the Bench that the Supreme Court had on May 21, 2025 stayed the operation of the nine amendment law to the extent that the provisions took away the power of the Governor to appoint vice-chancellors. However, the Supreme Court overturned the Supreme Court’s interim decision on February 4, 2026.

Since the main case must now be argued at length, the AG requested the court to set a date in June. However, when the petitioner’s lawyer insisted on a short postponement, the judges decided to save the case for April 9, 2026 and then call to set a date for the final hearing. Mr Wilson told the court that the defenses were completed with the submission of the counter-affidavit.

In his bench, Mr. Shankar told the court that the writ petition filed by Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy from Tirunelveli was a politically motivated case as it concealed the fact that the petitioner was the district secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Secretary also maintained that there is no question that the Amendment Bills are contrary to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.

He said the vice-chancellor was an officer of the university and not a faculty member to implement the UGC Regulations regarding his appointment. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan, former vice-chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University, to support his contention that a vice-chancellor is an officer of a university.

Also emphasizing that the Centre’s authority is limited to setting standards for higher education, Mr. Shankar said such a power would not include regulatory and administrative functions of universities under the State’s legislative authority. “The powers of the vice-chancellor’s appointing authority have no direct bearing on higher education standards,” he said.

He urged the court to dismiss the writ petition, seeking exemplary costs.