Supreme Court Intervenes in Kerala VC Impasse, Appoints Ex-Judge to Head Search Committee

In an exceptional move to resolve a protracted administrative deadlock, the Supreme Court has stepped in to oversee the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in two Kerala state universities, highlighting the judiciary's role in settling high-stakes disputes between the executive and the Governor.

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Wednesday took a decisive step to end the long-standing stalemate between the Kerala Government and the state's Governor over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs). By appointing its own former judge, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, as the Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, the apex court has effectively taken control of the selection process for two key state universities: APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and the University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology.

The order, passed by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra (the source incorrectly mentions Justice R Mahadevan, who is a HC judge), addresses a Special Leave Petition filed by the Kerala Governor, in his capacity as Chancellor, challenging a Kerala High Court judgment. The High Court had previously invalidated the Chancellor's unilateral appointment of a temporary VC for KTU, ruling that such an appointment required the recommendation of the State Government.

Expressing a need for finality, the Supreme Court's order underscored the urgency of resolving the administrative vacuum. "We firmly believe that this impasse, which has been created, should be taken care of at earliest," the bench noted. "In such circumstances, we appointed Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, former judge of this Court, as chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection University for both universities."

This intervention marks a significant development in the ongoing friction between constitutional heads and elected governments in several states, particularly concerning the governance of state-run universities.

The Contours of the Court-Mandated Committee

The Supreme Court has vested considerable authority in the newly appointed Chairperson. The order grants Justice Dhulia the discretion to constitute either a single committee for both universities or separate ones for each. The committee's composition is set at five members, with Justice Dhulia presiding. This structure aims to balance the interests of the involved parties while ensuring an impartial outcome.

The order specifies that the committee will include two members each from lists provided by the Chancellor and the State Government. The fifth member will be a nominee from the University Grants Commission (UGC), ensuring adherence to national higher education standards. "Ultimately, we leave it to the discretion of the Chairperson," the Court concluded, placing its faith in Justice Dhulia's ability to navigate the contentious selection process.

Legal Background and the High Court's Stance

The current legal battle stems from the interpretation of Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act. The dispute escalated when the Chancellor appointed Dr. Ciza Thomas and Dr. K. Sivaprasad as temporary VCs for the Technological and Digital universities, respectively, in November 2024. These appointments were made without, and allegedly against, the recommendations of the State Government.

The State challenged these appointments, leading to a legal review by the Kerala High Court. A single-judge bench quashed the appointments on May 19, a decision that was subsequently upheld by a division bench on July 14.

The High Court's reasoning was rooted in a strict interpretation of the University Act. It held that the Chancellor's power to appoint a temporary VC is not absolute and must be exercised based on a recommendation from the State Government. The High Court's impugned order stated, "...the Chancellor can appoint a temporary VC only with the recommendation of the State Government for a period not exceeding six months." This ruling effectively curtailed the Governor's discretionary powers as Chancellor, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Governor's Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 20680-20681/2025) argues against this interpretation, seeking to reassert the Chancellor's authority in university administration.

The Supreme Court's Graduated Approach

Before this decisive intervention, the Supreme Court had attempted to facilitate an amicable resolution. On July 30, the bench had urged both the Chancellor and the State Government to set aside their differences and cooperate to ensure the appointment of regular VCs. The Court had also provided a temporary arrangement, clarifying that the Governor was free to re-appoint the incumbent temporary VCs until the regular appointments were finalized.

However, when the Chancellor proceeded to re-appoint the interim VCs, the State Government filed a fresh application challenging this move, indicating that the impasse was far from resolved. It was this failure to reach a consensus that likely prompted the Court to adopt a more hands-on approach by constituting the search committee itself. The bench had earlier asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State, to suggest names for the committee, signaling its intent to broker a solution.

Analysis: Implications for University Governance and Federalism

The Supreme Court's order has profound implications for the legal and administrative landscape of higher education and the delicate balance of power in India's federal structure.

1. Judicial Oversight in Administrative Deadlocks: The Court's willingness to step into what is fundamentally an executive function—the appointment of a search committee—sets a significant precedent. It signals that the judiciary will not remain a passive observer when prolonged disputes between constitutional functionaries threaten institutional stability. This can be viewed as an exercise of the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice."

2. Governor's Role as Chancellor: The case brings to the fore the often-contentious dual role of the Governor as the constitutional head of the state and the ex-officio Chancellor of state universities. While the former role is largely ceremonial and bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the latter often involves statutory powers that can be a source of friction. The final outcome of the main SLP will be crucial in clarifying the extent to which the Chancellor must act in concert with the elected government.

3. UGC Regulations vs. State Acts: The involvement of a UGC nominee on the committee is noteworthy. It aligns with the broader legal trend where UGC regulations on appointments and standards are often held by courts to have primacy over conflicting provisions in state university acts, reinforcing the national framework for higher education.

4. A Template for Resolution?: The model adopted by the Supreme Court—appointing a neutral, high-profile chairperson to oversee a balanced committee—could serve as a template for resolving similar conflicts in other states. By entrusting the process to a retired judge, the Court aims to de-politicize the appointments and restore focus on academic merit.

As the Justice Dhulia-led committee begins its work, the legal community and academic circles will be watching closely. The committee's recommendations will not only fill the leadership vacuum at two vital universities but will also test a novel, court-mandated mechanism for resolving governance crises in higher education. The final disposal of the Governor's SLP will provide further legal clarity on the powers and limitations of the Chancellor, potentially reshaping the dynamics of university administration across the country.