Governor Tamil over RN Ravi | Photo Credit: Hind
Governor Tamil Nadu and University Grants (UGC) found themselves in the Supreme Court to consent to the petitioner who attacked the authority of the state government to change nine acts, which took the authority of the Governor to appoint Vice -President (VCS) at state universities.
The petitioner, advocate K. Venkakalapath, previously 21st May, convinced the Madras High Court to approve an interim order that remained altered by actions that dressed the state government, not the governor, with the power to appoint VCS.
The state, represented by the head of lawyer Am Singhvi and P. Wilson, responded to the interim order by turning to the Supreme Court. The Top Court issued the announcement to Mr. Venkatchalapath; the government of the Union; UGC; Governor Tamil over; and the Ministry of Human Resources and Development.
In the anti -Fidavit Governor replied that the changes made by the government of the state were intentionally aim to “circumvent” binding UGC regulations.
“The legal framework orders this process in accordance with the binding UGC regulations that the state government has tried to bypass through laws on change. Changes of the university cannot suppress binding constitutional standards or central legislation. The accusation of the government,” said the governor.
Similarly, UGC also accused the condition of Tamil for the violation of the procedure for appointment of VC.
The state claimed that by performing its legislative competence granted the government of authority the appointment of the Chancellor, thereby violating the procedure for the appointment of vice -chairwoman prescribed under the clause 7.3 of the UGC regulations, 2018.
“UGC powers in terms of maintenance of university degrees are very wide and equally applicable to all universities. The oblique attempt by the petitioner (state government) is incorrectly linked to the limits of UGC powers and is obviously additional and incorrectly placed,” UGC said.
The state claimed that the High Court ordered a stay despite the Supreme Court in the judgment of 8 April and declared that the law was “considered consent” by the governor. The state government reported acts after the judgment. He claimed that there was a strong assumption of constitutionality against the laws adopted by the legislature.
The state stated that its appeal raised legal issues with broad consequences concerning the issues of federalism and state autonomy for the purpose of establishing, regulating and managing state universities within the entry of 32 List II of the seventh schedule of the Constitution together with issues concerning judicial infinity and discipline in hand access.
Published – August 13, 2025 23:11
