In a recent development, the Madras High Court has put a hold on state legislation that aimed to amend university laws to restrict the Governor’s role in the appointment process of Vice-Chancellors (VCs).
Legal Battle Unfolds
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan called for responses while considering an appeal filed by the state government against the interim order passed on May 21 by the high court. The court’s order had suspended the implementation of the state laws that altered various university laws to limit the Governor’s participation in the VC appointment process.
Represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson, the state urged the apex court to allow the Madras High Court to hear its plea to lift the stay on July 14, despite the matter being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Argument Pointers
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for UGC, opposed this request, highlighting Tamil Nadu’s transfer petition seeking to move related matters to the Supreme Court. Mehta argued that the state laws contradict UGC regulations.
The bench refrained from expressing its views and limited itself to issuing formal notices on the state’s plea against the high court’s order.
High Court’s Ruling
The high court’s ruling came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the state’s amendments. The petitioner contended that the laws violated central UGC regulations, which mandate VC appointments to be made by the Chancellor – the Governor.
The high court granted an interim stay on the state laws, stopping their implementation, during the summer recess. Among other changes, the laws removed the Governor’s authority in VC appointments and empowered the state to set eligibility criteria and remove VCs.
Appeal and Contention
In its appeal, the Tamil Nadu government argued that the high court hastily stayed the operation of nine state legislature statutes, many of which had received deemed assent following a Supreme Court judgment in April. The amendments were made after the Supreme Court rebuked the Governor for delays in approving pending bills related to VC appointments.
The state alleged that the high court’s stay was final relief at the interim stage and that the court failed to give the state a fair chance to respond or present its arguments.
Challenging the PIL
The state also questioned the PIL’s validity, suggesting it was heard during a vacation period without urgency. The state argued that the petitioner, linked to a political party, had the case listed against court rules that limited vacation benches to urgent matters only.
Citing the 2014 Constitution Bench ruling, the state reminded the top court of the presumption of constitutionality in favor of laws passed by legislatures.
📌 Also Read:
- Understanding Modern Dating Trends: What Women Really Want – GNP News
- Understanding Earth’s Climate Tipping Points – GNP News
- SEBI Plans Major Nationwide Investor Education Campaign – GNP News