The Supreme Court of India set aside the Madras High Court’s late-evening interim order staying Tamil Nadu laws on Vice-Chancellor appointments, citing denial of adequate hearing to the State.
The apex court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration and asked it to decide the case expeditiously within six weeks.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday set aside a late-evening interim order passed by the Madras High Court, which had stayed Tamil Nadu laws that transferred the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run universities from the Governor to the State government.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, held that the High Court vacation bench had passed the order without giving the State government a proper opportunity to be heard. On this ground alone, the Supreme Court quashed the interim stay and sent the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
The dispute arises from a larger constitutional issue. After a recent Supreme Court judgment dealing with the powers of Governors, the Tamil Nadu government notified several Bills as “deemed to have been assented”.
These included amendments to various State university laws which removed the Governor, acting as Chancellor, from the process of appointing Vice-Chancellors and vested that power in the State government.
These amendments were challenged before the Madras High Court. The petitioner contended that removing the Governor from the appointment process was unconstitutional and also violated University Grants Commission regulations, which were said to mandate an independent and apolitical mechanism for appointing Vice-Chancellors.
The matter came up before a vacation bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan in May 2025. The hearing continued beyond regular court hours. Despite repeated requests from the State government to adjourn the matter by a day, the Bench proceeded to dictate an interim order at around 7 PM.
In that order, the High Court stayed the operation of the amendments, observing that they appeared to be “ex facie unconstitutional”. The stay was limited only to those provisions that transferred the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the State government.
The High Court reasoned that the alleged conflict with UGC regulations raised serious constitutional questions which justified immediate judicial intervention.
The timing and manner in which the order was passed attracted criticism. The State government complained that it was compelled to argue complex constitutional issues late in the evening and that the interim stay was granted without adequate hearing. It also pointed out that related matters concerning the role of Governors were already pending before the Supreme Court.
Aggrieved by the interim stay, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order and also sought transfer of the pending High Court proceedings to the apex court.
Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the High Court had stayed duly enacted legislation without granting sufficient opportunity to place its full case on record. It submitted that such a serious order should not have been passed without hearing the State at length.
The Supreme Court agreed that the process adopted by the High Court raised serious concerns. The Bench clarified that it was not examining the merits of the amendments at this stage, but was focusing on the procedure followed while granting the interim stay.
The Court observed that legislation enacted by a democratically elected legislature should not ordinarily be stayed without giving the State a full and fair hearing. On this limited ground, the Supreme Court set aside the interim stay and remitted the matter to the Madras High Court for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties.
The Bench was also informed by the State government that it did not intend to make any Vice-Chancellor appointments until the High Court delivers its final decision.
Taking note of this assurance, the Supreme Court requested the Madras High Court to hear the matter expeditiously and decide it within six weeks. It further directed that the case be placed before a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of the High Court or any other appropriate Bench.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Tamil Nadu University
