A PIL in Madras High Court challenges 12 Tamil Nadu laws transferring Vice-Chancellor appointment powers from the Governor to the State. Petitioner argues the laws violate UGC norms and the Constitution.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to declare as “null and void” the 12 amendment Acts passed by the Tamil Nadu government.
These amendments give the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run universities to the State government, instead of the Governor who was earlier the appointing authority.
The summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan admitted the PIL on May 14, 2025. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of these amendment laws.
The Bench issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government and asked for a response by May 21.
The court will consider whether to grant interim orders to stop the operation of these amendments until the final decision is made in the PIL.
During the hearing, Advocate General P.S. Raman requested more time for the State government to file its reply.
He said that a week was not enough because multiple departments needed to check and approve the counter affidavit.
He stated,
“A week would be too short a time for the State government to file a counter affidavit to the interim stay petitions. He said, at least three government departments would have to vet the counter affidavit before it could be filed in the court.”
Senior Counsel P. Wilson, appearing for the Higher Education Department, also raised another point. He informed the court that a similar case is already pending before the Supreme Court.
He also referred to the arguments made earlier by the Attorney General of India.
He stated,
“Attorney General R. Venkataramani too had attacked the 12 laws during the hearing of cases filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Governor for delaying grant of assent.”
He further argued that the Supreme Court had already looked into the issue in detail and given a verdict.
He added,
“The Supreme Court had considered all those submissions and then passed a detailed judgment running for over 400 pages in which the Acts were deemed to have been granted assent. Therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to reagitate the issue before the High Court.”
Justice Swaminathan, however, told both the Attorney General and the senior counsel to make their submissions in the next hearing and directed the Registry to list the matter again on May 21.
The court will decide on the petitioner’s request to stay the operation of the 12 laws until the PIL is fully heard and decided.
Also Read: UGC NET Exam Cancelled | What is the New ‘Anti-Paper Leak’ Law? And Punishments Under it?
The PIL was filed by K. Venkatachalapathy, a lawyer from Tirunelveli, through his counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan. The petitioner argued that the amendment laws apply to several important universities, including those for medical studies, law, and veterinary sciences.
He claimed that changing the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor (who also acts as Chancellor of the universities) to the State government violates national rules set by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
The petitioner highlighted that as per Regulation 7.3 of the 2018 UGC Regulations,
“Vice-Chancellors must be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel recommended by a search panel.”
He questioned how State laws could change this established process.
He asked,
“In such circumstances, how could the State laws introduce a procedure contrary to the UGC Regulations?”
He further explained that the UGC is a statutory body formed under a central law to regulate and monitor the functioning of all universities in the country.
Therefore, he said,
“The amendments carried out by the State legislature were actually repugnant to the central law and therefore, they must be declared null and void.”
The petitioner also raised a doubt about the meaning of the word “Government” in the amendment Acts.
He said,
“Therefore, another issue that arises would be whether the word ‘Government’ in the impugned amendments would meaan the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or the Council of Ministers or the Governor who is the executive head of the State. There is no clarity on this aspect in the impugned amendments.”
He warned that this confusion could lead to unfairness in appointments.
He said,
“In the absence of clarity, there is every likelihood of lack of transparency or malpractice or element of bias or favouritism in the appointments.”
He reminded the court that education is listed in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, which means both the Centre and State can make laws on the subject.
However, he argued that the Centre has the ultimate authority to make rules to maintain standards in higher education.
He said,
“Therefore, as a subordinate legislation, the 2018 UGC Regulations become a part of the UGC Act. In case of any conflict between a State legislation and a Central legislation, the Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution.”
Finally, the petitioner told the court that the recent judgment by the Supreme Court, which said the amendment Acts are deemed to have received the Governor’s assent, does not stop him from questioning the laws’ validity on other grounds.
He said,
“It was also brought to the notice of the Bench that the recent Supreme Court verdict holding that the amendment Acts would be deemed to have been assented to by the Governor would not preclude the present petitioner from challenging their validity on the ground of repugnancy.”
The Madras High Court will now hear the case again on May 21, 2025, when it will decide whether to stay the 12 amendment Acts temporarily.
The case has drawn attention as it deals with the balance of power between the State and the Centre and how appointments to top educational posts should be handled legally and transparently.
