Madras High Court strongly defended its interim stay on Tamil Nadu laws altering Governor’s powers to appoint VCs. It rejected the argument that the stay interfered with a Supreme Court ruling.
The Madras High Court recently made strong remarks during a hearing about amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu government that took away the Governor’s powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in state-run universities.
A Vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan temporarily suspended these amendments, saying the changes clearly went against existing laws and might be unconstitutional.
Also Read: Supreme Court Deliberates on ED’s Authority in Tamil Nadu District Collectors’ Summoning
During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing the State’s Higher Education Department, argued that the High Court should not interfere in this matter because the Supreme Court had already looked into the issues related to the Governor’s powers.
He mentioned that the laws were given “deemed assent” by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, in a previous case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor R.N. Ravi for delaying assent to several bills.
However, the High Court reacted sharply to this. It strongly disagreed with the idea that looking into the constitutional validity of the amendments would mean going against the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Court responded by saying:
“Shri P. Wilson made a preposterous submission that we were virtually reviewing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- The Governor of Tamil Nadu. No submission can be more outrageous than this. We are mindful of our position. We know that we have to give the highest respect to any decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We do not need lectures from Shri P. Wilson on this score.”
The High Court pointed out that the Supreme Court had not examined whether these amendments were constitutional.
Therefore, it was not wrong for the High Court to look into this legal issue. The Court further explained:
“We believe in judicial discipline. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision was not concerned with the constitutionality of the impugned provisions. When the learned Advocate General at one point claimed that the petitioner’s Senior Counsel is merely reiterating the contentions advanced in the said decision, we called upon the learned Advocate General to draw our attention to the relevant paragraphs, where the contentions now advanced stood rejected. The learned Advocate General made a vain attempt and subsequently gave up this objection altogether.”
Even though a petition had been filed in the Supreme Court to transfer the matter from the High Court, the judges said there was no stay order in place to stop them from hearing the case.
They clarified:
“If the Hon’ble Supreme Court had orally injuncted us from taking up this case and the same had been brought to our notice, we would have unhesitatingly kept our hands off. But, no such development has taken place. That is why we are unable to accede to the request made by the learned Advocate General for adjourning the case. We are on a short point. When we notice that the impugned amending Acts fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are unable to mechanically adjourn the proceedings. It is this primary consideration that impels us to grant interim relief.”
The judges also stated that these amendments seemed to go against the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, making it necessary to grant temporary relief.
They also addressed the State’s argument that the issue was not urgent and that the Court should not hear it during vacation. The Court had a clear message:
“It is true that the High Court is on Vacation and that we are sitting as Vacation Bench Judges. To us, it should not make any difference. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has observed that Court Vacation sittings should be rechristened ‘partial working days’. We take inspiration from the said observation. Judges can be on vacation, Courts should not be on vacation. Access to justice should always be available. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes. That is why we propose to intervene then and there.”
The Bench also noted that the State had enough time—more than a week—to respond to the case and saw no valid reason to give them additional time. They mentioned:
“Pure questions of law have been addressed. In our respectful view, a week was more than sufficient for the State to file its written response. We say with utmost sadness and regret that the approach of Shri P. Wilson was one of obstruction and not assistance. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General even while insisting that the case should be adjourned, offered his assistance by addressing the Court on all the legal issues.”
In conclusion, the High Court stayed the amendments, stating that the laws were clearly against the Constitution and the public interest. The Bench declared:
“The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the impugned amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer.”
Importantly, this detailed order was dictated at nearly 7 PM—beyond regular Court hours—while the microphone was muted.
The petitioner in this case was a BJP leader and lawyer from Tirunelveli, who was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and Advocate Shanmuganathan.
The State’s legal team was led by Advocate General P.S. Raman, assisted by Advocate Edwin Prabakar. Senior Advocate P. Wilson appeared for the Higher Education Department, while Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan and Advocate V. Sudha represented the UGC.
This case has now raised serious constitutional questions around the role of the Governor in university appointments, the powers of the State government, and the importance of judicial checks on lawmaking processes.
The High Court’s strong remarks, firm action, and clear stance underline its commitment to constitutional principles and timely access to justice.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Governor
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
