The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court after Governor Ravi set up committees to select vice-chancellors for the University of Madras, Bharathiar University, and the Tamil Nadu Teachers Training University.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday (17th Jan) urged Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the ruling DMK government to resolve their ongoing conflict over the appointment of vice-chancellors for state-run universities. The court emphasized that the matter, which has been dragging on for years, must be settled soon.
A bench led by Justice SB Pardiwala stated, “By next date (of hearing) if this is resolved… well and good. Otherwise, we will resolve it.”
Two writ petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor were listed before a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan. The petitions were orally mentioned in the morning, requesting an adjournment.
Background:
The disagreement stems from the Governor’s insistence on appointing vice-chancellors in his role as the honorary chancellor of Tamil Nadu’s universities. The ruling DMK opposes this, arguing that such appointments should be made by the state government.
READ ALSO: Madras HC Seeks EC’s Response to DMK’s Pre-Certification Plea for Campaign Videos
The two sides also differ on the Governor’s authority to appoint members to Tamil Nadu’s Public Service Commission.
The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court after Governor Ravi set up committees to select vice-chancellors for the University of Madras, Bharathiar University, and the Tamil Nadu Teachers Training University.
The state government called this move “illegal” and reconstituted the committees, removing members from the University Grants Commission (UGC), a central body under the Union Education Ministry.
READ ALSO: [Defamation Suit] DMK Moves HC Against AIADMK Chief EPS, Seeks Rs 1 Cr In Damages
In response, Governor Ravi withdrew the search committees he had initially formed.
DMK’s Accusations Against the Governor
The DMK also filed a petition seeking directives to the Governor to clear several pending bills. These include some introduced by the previous AIADMK government. The DMK accused the BJP-appointed Governor of intentionally delaying the bills and “undermining the elected administration” by obstructing the state’s progress.
Supreme Court Questions Governor’s Delay
During a November 2023 hearing, the Supreme Court criticized the Governor’s actions.
The bench questioned, “These bills (have been) pending since 2020. What were you doing for three years?”
The court pointed out that Article 200 of the Indian Constitution gives the Governor three options for handling bills presented by the legislature:
- Clear the bill,
- Withhold assent, or
- Refer the bill to the President for consideration.
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and asked, “Can a Governor withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly?”
During today’s proceedings, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, initially sought the Court’s permission to allow their amendment applications, which addressed developments since the previous hearing. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani raised no objections to the amendment applications. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tamil Nadu in the second matter, requested the Court to consider the two cases separately.
Appearing for the Governor, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the Governor’s role is not merely ceremonial.
He stated, “The Governor, of any state, is not a mere technical supervisor… (s/he) has an important role to play in passing bills.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
