The Supreme Court sharply criticised the Kerala Governor for not taking a decision on the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia report concerning Vice Chancellor appointments in two state universities. The Bench said the Governor cannot sit on the recommendations and must act without further delay.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticised the Kerala Governor for delaying action on the report submitted by Justice (Retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the appointment of Vice Chancellors in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology.
The top court said the Governor, who is also the Chancellor of these universities, cannot keep the matter pending for an unlimited time and must take a clear decision on the committee’s recommendations without further delay.
ALSO READ: Vice-Chancellors Appointments: TN Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Madras HC Stay
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that when a report is submitted by a committee appointed by the Supreme Court, the Governor is duty-bound to act on it promptly.
The judges made it clear that such inaction affects the functioning of universities and creates instability in academic administration.
They stressed that the recommendations placed before the Governor require urgent and serious consideration.
The court made these remarks while reviewing the current status of the report submitted by Justice Dhulia. This report was prepared to address doubts over the legality and correctness of the recent Vice Chancellor appointments in the two Kerala universities.
The Bench clearly stated that the Governor cannot indefinitely postpone his decision, especially when the matter directly impacts students, teachers, and the overall academic environment of the institutions.
Earlier, in September, the Attorney General of India had informed the Supreme Court that Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar had filed an application seeking the removal of the Kerala Chief Minister from the Committee formed for appointing regular Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology.
The Attorney General referred to a later order passed in the West Bengal Governor matter, where the Governor’s power as the appointing authority for Vice Chancellors was restored. He pointed out that this created confusion in Kerala over who has the final authority in the appointment process.
He requested the Court to consider the Governor’s application before Justice Dhulia, who was heading the committee, submitted his final recommendations.
Subsequently, the Kerala Governor approached the Supreme Court again, seeking modification of its August 18 order which laid down the process for appointing Vice Chancellors to the two state universities.
In his plea, the Governor requested that the Chief Minister be removed from the selection process. He also asked that a nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC) be included in the search committee and that the Chancellor should have the freedom to choose from an alphabetical panel of shortlisted candidates.
The Governor argued that the Court had wrongly relied on the case of State of West Bengal v. Sanat Kumar Ghosh, since the Kerala University statutes do not give any role to the Chief Minister or the State Government in appointing Vice Chancellors.
He further relied on the judgment in Prof. Dr. Sreejith v. Dr. Rajasree (2023), where the Supreme Court had held that UGC Regulations will prevail over any conflicting state laws in matters of Vice Chancellor appointments.
On August 18, the Supreme Court had appointed former judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as the Chairperson of the Search and Selection Committee to end the deadlock between the State Government and the Governor over the appointment of Vice Chancellors.
While doing so, the Court made it clear that “students should not suffer” due to continuous delays and political disagreement.
The Bench had decided that the committee would consist of five members, including two nominees each from the Chancellor and the State, along with Justice Dhulia as the Chairperson. He was also given the freedom to form either a common committee or separate committees for the two universities.
Earlier, on August 13, the Supreme Court had already expressed its intention to step in and form a Search Committee on its own, as both the Governor and the State failed to reach any agreement on the issue.
The Court had taken this step to ensure that the process of appointing Vice Chancellors does not remain stuck in administrative and political rivalry.
The present dispute also relates to the Kerala Governor’s challenge to a July 14, 2025 judgment of the Kerala High Court. In that judgment, the High Court had upheld the State’s use of Section 13(7) to justify temporary Vice Chancellor appointments.
The Governor argued that such temporary appointments are against UGC Regulations, which do not recognise the concept of temporary Vice Chancellors and instead require strict compliance with academic and eligibility standards.
On July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court had allowed the Governor to make fresh temporary appointments within the six-month statutory limit. However, it had also strictly warned both the Governor and the State Government not to politicise the matter and to prioritise the interests of students.
The Court had clearly directed both sides to cooperate and work together until permanent Vice Chancellors are appointed through a proper and lawful process.
Case Title:
The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Read More Reports On Vice Chancellors
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
