The Supreme Court of India on Monday announced that it will hear on December 2 the plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court’s order that stayed the operation of state amendments which remove the governor’s authority to appoint vice-chancellors in universities.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi initially considered remitting the matter back to the high court to provide the state with a detailed opportunity to present its arguments. However, the bench decided that it would directly hear the plea in the first week of December.

Arguments from the Parties
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the governor, suggested that the issue may be addressed in the forthcoming judgment on the Presidential reference regarding the powers of the governor, which is expected from a bench headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai.

On the other hand, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and P. Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the apex court should hear the case independently. They requested the court to keep the matter pending for a week to determine whether it could be addressed under the Presidential reference or not.

The bench remarked that it would have been preferable to have the high court’s perspective before taking a decision. Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government has also filed a petition seeking the transfer of a public interest litigation (PIL)challenging the state amendment pending before the high court.

Singhvi contended that the present matter is independent of the Presidential reference and can be examined directly by the Supreme Court. Wilson emphasized the urgency, noting that 14 out of 22 universities in Tamil Nadu currently lack vice-chancellors, and highlighted the administrative challenges caused by the ex-parte stay granted by the high court.

“I am unable to do anything in the state. Ex-parte stay was granted. The Presidential reference decision has no impact on this. The question is who can be the appointing authority. There is some urgency involved here,” Wilson stated.

Background
The Madras High Court, on May 21, stayed the state amendments while hearing a PIL. These amendments were introduced following the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which had established specific timelines for governors to give assent to bills passed by state assemblies. The verdict also provided for deemed assent to ten bills held by the governor.

The Tamil Nadu government’s amendments aimed to curtail the governor’s power to appoint vice-chancellors and transfer this authority to the state administration. The high court’s stay, however, temporarily blocked this shift, creating a legal and administrative limbo in the appointment process of university heads.

With nearly two-thirds of the state’s universities headless, the matter has drawn significant attention from both the legal fraternity and academic institutions, who are awaiting clarity on the appointing authority for vice-chancellors. The Supreme Court’s decision on December 2 is expected to provide a decisive resolution on the authority to appoint VCs in Tamil Nadu.