Supreme Court Rebukes Kerala Governor for Inaction on VC Appointments, Demands Swift Decision

In a sharp rebuke highlighting the ongoing friction between the executive and the judiciary, the Supreme Court has sternly criticized the Governor of Kerala for his delay in acting upon the recommendations for Vice-Chancellor appointments, reinforcing the judiciary's role in breaking administrative deadlocks.

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India on Friday, November 28, expressed strong disapproval of the Kerala Governor's prolonged inaction regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) for two key state universities. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan admonished the Chancellor's office for failing to consider a report submitted by a court-appointed committee, ordering that a decision be taken promptly.

The hearing, part of the case THE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS , underscores the escalating tensions between the state government and the Governor, Arif Mohammad Khan, who also serves as the Chancellor of state universities. This judicial intervention is a pivotal moment in the broader national debate on the powers and responsibilities of Governors in university administration, particularly in opposition-ruled states.

The Genesis of the Conflict: A Stalemate in University Governance

The matter before the Supreme Court originated from a protracted stalemate between the Kerala State Government and the Chancellor over the appointment of VCs to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology. The impasse had left the universities in a state of administrative uncertainty.

This dispute initially reached the Kerala High Court, which had quashed the Chancellor's unilateral appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor without consulting the state government. The Governor, in his capacity as Chancellor, then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's verdict.

Recognizing the need to resolve the deadlock, the Supreme Court, in an order dated August 18, 2025, took the proactive step of constituting a high-level search committee. This committee was headed by its own former judge, Justice (retd.) Sudhanshu Dhulia, and was formed with the consent of all parties involved—the State Government and the Chancellor. The committee's mandate was clear: to shortlist suitable candidates for the VC positions. Crucially, the Court had also directed the Chancellor to make the final appointments in the same order of preference as recommended by the Chief Minister, who would forward the committee's report.

A Report Ignored: The Court's Displeasure

The issue was brought before the bench again on Friday by the Kerala Government, represented by Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta. He informed the court that although Justice Dhulia's committee had completed its work and submitted its report, the Chancellor had failed to take any decision, effectively perpetuating the administrative vacuum.

Justice Pardiwala, leading the bench, immediately sought answers from the Chancellor's counsel. "Has the Chancellor looked into the report of Hon'ble Justice Dhulia?" he inquired pointedly.

When the counsel responded in the negative, the bench’s tone grew sharper. "Why has he not looked into it?" Justice Pardiwala pressed.

The Chancellor's counsel attempted to justify the delay by stating they had sought the "record of the proceedings" from Justice Dhulia's committee and had only received the final report forwarded by the Chief Minister. This explanation was met with incredulity from the bench.

"We fail to understand why the non-receipt of the records is coming in the way for the purpose of looking into the report filed by the committee," the bench noted in its official order. It dismissed the excuse as an untenable reason for inaction, highlighting that the final report itself was the primary document for consideration.

A Judicial Admonition: "Not Just an Ordinary Piece of Paper"

In a striking affirmation of the committee's authority and the judiciary's investment in the process, Justice Pardiwala delivered a stern message to the Chancellor's counsel. When the counsel attempted to make further arguments, Justice Pardiwala interjected, emphasizing the gravity of the report.

"This is not just an ordinary piece of paper. A former Judge of the Supreme Court has looked into it. So you are to look into the report and take an appropriate call."

This statement serves as a powerful reminder of the respect and deference owed to a process established by the nation's highest court. The bench reminded all parties that the committee was not an external body but was "appointed with the concurrence of all the parties," making its findings and recommendations integral to the resolution process mandated by the Court itself.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The Supreme Court's intervention and strong stance carry significant legal and constitutional weight. The proceedings touch upon several critical areas of law:

• Judicial Oversight of Executive Discretion: The case is a classic example of the judiciary stepping in to ensure that constitutional functionaries exercise their duties in a timely and reasonable manner. The Court is not dictating the final choice of VC but is compelling the Chancellor to perform his statutory duty of making a decision based on the established, court-approved procedure.

• The Role of the Governor as Chancellor: In many states, the Governor's role as Chancellor is governed by state university acts. This dual role often becomes a flashpoint in federal relations. The Supreme Court's order implicitly asserts that the Chancellor's powers are not absolute and are subject to judicial review, especially when their exercise (or lack thereof) leads to an administrative stalemate that harms public institutions.

• Enforcement of Judicial Orders: By constituting the Justice Dhulia committee, the Supreme Court had laid down a specific procedural pathway to resolve the dispute. The Chancellor's delay was perceived by the Court as a disregard for this pathway. The bench's firm directive is a reassertion of its authority to see its orders implemented in both letter and spirit.

The Path Forward: A Decision Under Scrutiny

The Supreme Court has now directed the Chancellor to act on the committee's report without further delay and has posted the matter for further hearing next Friday. The bench has put the Chancellor on notice that his eventual decision will also be subject to judicial scrutiny.

"We expect you to take a decision. When the decision is placed before us, we will decide if the decision is right or wrong," Justice Pardiwala concluded, making it clear that the Court's oversight of the matter is far from over.

This case will be closely watched by legal experts and academics, as its outcome could set a precedent for resolving similar conflicts over university governance and redefine the operational boundaries of a Governor's role as Chancellor in the Indian federal structure. The Court's firm handling sends a clear signal that constitutional posts must function to uphold institutional integrity, not to prolong political or administrative deadlocks.