The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s May 21 order that stayed nine state laws from 2020 related to appointing Vice-Chancellors in universities, calling it unconstitutional interference.
The Tamil Nadu government has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court contesting the validity of the Madras High Court’s order from May 21, 2025, which stayed the implementation of nine 2020 laws regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in state universities.
These laws had previously been recognized as valid by the Supreme Court, which used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare the Governor’s decision to refer the bills to the President as illegal.
Also Read: Delhi University Vice-Chancellor Rejects Proposal to Include Manusmriti in Law Courses
The high court, On May 21, granted a stay on the amendments based on a writ petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy, also known as Kutty, an advocate from Tirunelveli.
The high court held that the UGC Regulations 2018 would take precedence over the state legislation due to the doctrine of repugnancy.
The challenge to the Tamil Nadu laws focused on their compliance with the UGC Regulations 2018 concerning the appointment of Vice-Chancellors.
In a special leave petition prepared by senior advocate P. Wilson, the DMK government argued that courts should exercise caution in issuing interim orders when the constitutionality of provisions is contested, as there is a strong presumption of constitutionality.
They pointed out that the high court’s interim order effectively removed the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Chancellor (the Governor) and transferred it to the state government, granting what amounted to final relief at an interim stage.
The state government further argued that the petition was filed during vacation without demonstrating any urgency.
They contended that the vacation division bench of the high court improperly entertained a plea from a lawyer affiliated with a political party, contrary to a notification issued on April 29, 2025, which stated that only “very urgent matters” should be listed before the vacation court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Appoints Ex-CJI UU Lalit to Head West Bengal Vice-Chancellor Appointments
The state government noted,
“The division bench of the high court did not give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner – State to file a counter affidavit or respond to the writ petition or even argue before staying nine statutes enacted by the State Legislature which received deemed assent from this court in a landmark judgement titled State of Tamil Nadu Vs Governor of Tamil Nadu,”
They accused the high court of showing “undue haste” in concluding the hearing on the interim applications and providing “extraneous reasons for its findings.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
