The Karnataka High Court confirmed Vidyashankar’s second term as VTU Vice Chancellor

S. Vidyashankar, Vice-Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University | Photo credit: File photo

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the continuance of S. Vidyashankar as Vice-Chancellor of Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU), saying the extension of his tenure was a valid exercise of statutory discretion and did not require a fresh selection process.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivering the judgment on a petition filed by Dr. Nageswara Rao Tubati, ruled that a writ of quo warranto — a high privilege remedy calling on a person to prove under what authority he holds public office — cannot be issued without a clear statutory or constitutional violation.

The petitioner, a professor at the Oxford College of Engineering, Bengaluru, challenged the Chancellor’s notification dated 3 September 2025 extending the tenure of Mr. Vidyashankar for a second term of three years under Section 13(4) of the VTU Act, 1994. The original appointment made on 29 September 2025 was upheld by the High Court in 2022, Bench. 2023 and subsequently by the Supreme Court in April 2024.

The petitioner alleged that the absence of a University Grants Commission (UGC) nominee from the original search committee and the alleged ties of two members of the committee to the university made the appointment illegal under the UGC Regulations, 2018. He also cited pending criminal proceedings against the incumbent.

Justice Nagaprasanna rejected these arguments, saying that “a reappointment, where it is an immediate continuation of the first term and where the governing statute does not mandate a fresh process, need not pass through every sieve that the original appointment must pass through.”

The court further held that the grounds now raised, including the absence of the UGC nominee, were available and urged during the earlier challenge to the original appointment and became final as even the high court refused to interfere with the original appointment.

“The same appointment, the same incumbent, and essentially the same underlying reasons cannot be put on the anvil repeatedly just because the hand wielding the hammer has changed…,” the court noted in denying the motion.

Published – 11 Sep 2026 21:19 IST