Madras HC Halts Bid to Strip Governor of VC Appointment Powers, Citing UGC Standards

In a significant judicial intervention, the Madras High Court has stayed the implementation of recent amendments to 18 Tamil Nadu University Acts that sought to strip the Governor of the state—acting as Chancellor—of his power to appoint Vice-Chancellors, transferring that authority directly to the State Government. The Vacation Bench, comprising Justices G. R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, underscored the primacy of central standards in higher education, ruling that the state’s legislative changes were "glaringly unconstitutional."

A Challenge to Legislative Supremacy

The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, initiated this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arguing that the state amendments were in direct conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. This regulation mandates a rigorous, neutral search-cum-selection process for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, ensuring that a representative of the UGC is included to maintain academic standards.

The state government, represented by the Advocate General and Senior Counsel P. Wilson, defended the amendments, arguing that the UGC regulations constitute subordinate legislation and cannot override the plenary legislative power of the state assembly. They further pointed to the "presumption of constitutionality" and urged the Court to exercise judicial restraint during the vacation period, citing a pending challenge before the Supreme Court.

The Court's Judicial Analysis

Rejecting the state's plea for adjournment, the High Court bench emphasized that "access to justice should always be available" and that a vacation is not a time for courts to be paralyzed by injustice.

The Court relied heavily on a series of recent Supreme Court precedents, including Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Professor Sreejith v. Dr. Rajashree MS , which have consistently upheld that in the sphere of higher education, central regulations—specifically those aimed at maintaining standards—prevail over state Acts under Article 254 of the Constitution. Upon noting that the UGC 2018 regulations were adopted by the state government itself in 2021, the Bench found the state's current attempt to bypass these norms as contradictory and legally untenable.

Key Observations

The High Court’s order was resolute in its assessment of the constitutional clash:

> "The presumption of constitutionality which the amending Acts did carry stood displaced the moment the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court... were cited. The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious."

> "When repugnancy between the impugned amendment Acts and the UGC Regulation is obvious and admitted, it is our judicial duty to apply the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

> "We are clearly of the view that the impugned amendments suffer from the vice of repugnancy and run counter to the line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Practical Implications

The Court concluded that allowing the state to proceed with the appointment process under the flawed amendments would lead to "irreparable injury." Consequently, it issued an interim stay on the specific provisions of the acts that effectively transferred the Chancellor's power of appointment to the State.

While the Court permitted the continued functioning of the search committees, it ensured that the final appointment power remains aligned with established UGC guidelines. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that even in the face of political exigencies, the coordination and determination of standards in higher education remain within the federal mandate, ensuring that university leadership is based on merit rather than purely executive discretion. The matter is set to return for further proceedings in eight weeks.