Today, On 13th August, The Supreme Court said, “Don’t precipitate on temporary VC issue, position of law doesn’t change,” while deciding to form a search committee for appointing regular vice-chancellors in Kerala universities amid an ongoing deadlock between the Governor and state government.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today addressed the Kerala Governor’s petition, which challenges the Kerala High Court’s ruling that supported the State’s interpretation regarding temporary Vice-Chancellor appointments.
The Court announced it would establish a Search Committee to aid in appointing regular Vice-Chancellors for both APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology.
This decision comes after the State of Kerala and the Governor, acting as Chancellor, failed to agree on the appointment process.
The Bench, comprised of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, was hearing the case.
Attorney General R. Venkatramani, representing the Chancellor alongside Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar, affirmed that the Governor’s actions were in accordance with the previous judgment.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State, stated,
“We tried, but it seems we have gone the wrong way.”
When Gupta mentioned the Court’s order from July 30, which indicated that the regular Vice-Chancellor appointment process might take time, Justice Pardiwala inquired, “Why is it taking time?”
Gupta explained that the constitution of the Committee under Sections 13(1) and (2) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act was contentious, noting,
“We started the process on 12 July, 2024, but we were met with a different committee constituted by the Chancellor himself.”
Justice Pardiwala asked how the authority to form the committee was established. Gupta asserted that it resided with the State under UGC Regulations, but the Chancellor disregarded its recommendations.
The Attorney General countered,
“Don’t say that… The Chancellor went by UGC Regulation.”
When questioned about authority, the AG stated,
“As per UGC, the Chancellor.”
The Bench suggested that both parties provide four names each, along with one nomination from the UGC, for the Court to form the Search Committee.
Justice Pardiwala remarked,
“The Chancellor and State Government should sit for a cup of coffee.”
The AG informed the Court about prior discussions with the Chancellor and highlighted governance issues at the universities, including a five-year period without audits.
Regarding temporary Vice-Chancellors, Gupta mentioned the State’s challenge to the Governor’s recent notifications, arguing that under Section 13(7), the Chancellor could only appoint from a panel recommended by the State. When Justice Pardiwala inquired if the State planned to question the current Vice-Chancellor’s qualifications, Gupta responded that the objection was procedural rather than personal.
The Court instructed both parties to submit names for the Search Committee by tomorrow morning,
“In the larger interest, we may ignore what was pointed out by Mr. Gupta. We will constitute a Search Committee and it will give its opinion. You, in consultation with the State, sit and decide one with both universities,”
Justice Pardiwala stated, cautioning,
“Mr. Gupta, our respect to your client, don’t precipitate on temporary VC issue. That does not mean the position of law changes.”
The matter is set to be reviewed tomorrow at the top of the Board for further directions.
The petition submitted by the Kerala Governor contests the Kerala High Court’s ruling from July 14, 2025, which supported the State’s interpretation of Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.
Also Read: Supreme Court Steps In: Tamil Nadu vs. Governor Verdict Sparks Judicial Overreach Debate
This section allows for temporary appointments, despite a statutory limit of six months and claims of non-compliance with University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.
The petition argues that the Governor, in his role as Chancellor, cannot be compelled by the State Government to appoint Vice-Chancellors in a manner that violates established UGC guidelines.
It contends that appointments made under Section 13(7) should only be valid for a maximum of six months, and asserts that the High Court incorrectly allowed for extended tenures by interpreting the phrase “until further orders.”
Case Title: The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Diary No. 40761/2025)
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
