The Higher Education Secretary claimed that there is no doubt that the amended laws would be in violation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations 2018. | Photo credit: FILE PHOTO
It was the state legislature that enacted the laws empowering the governor in his/her capacity as chancellor to appoint vice-chancellors in various state universities and therefore the same legislature is fully empowered to amend those laws and make the government the appointing authority, the Tamil Nadu government argued before the Madras High Court.
The submission was made in a counter-affidavit filed before First Division Bench Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan by Higher Education Minister P. Shankar. The counter-party was filed in response to a 2025 writ petition challenging the validity of nine amendment laws passed by the Assembly with respect to various universities.
Advocate General PS Raman and Senior Advocate P. Wilson told the Bench that the Supreme Court on 21 May 2025 had stayed the operation of the nine amendment laws to the extent that these provisions took away the Governor’s power to appoint the Vice-Chancellor. However, on February 4, 2026, the Supreme Court annulled the High Court’s interim order.
As the main case had to be heard at length at present, the AG asked the court to fix a date sometime during the month of June. However, when the petitioner’s counsel insisted on a short adjournment, the judges decided to list the case on April 9, 2026 and then call for a final hearing date. Mr Wilson told the court that the submissions had been completed by the filing of a counter-affidavit.
Mr. Shankar told the court that the suit filed by Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli was a politically motivated lawsuit as the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was the district secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The secretary also claimed that there was no doubt that the amendment laws would be in violation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations 2018.
He said that the Vice-Chancellor was an officer and not the teaching staff of the University to apply the UGC regulations with respect to his/her appointment. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in the case of former vice-chancellor Kalyani Mathivanan University Madurai Kamaraj to support his contention that the vice-chancellor was an officer of the university.
Further, emphasizing the power of the Center was limited to determining standards with respect to higher education, said Mr. Shankar, such power would not include the functions of regulation and administration of higher education institutions which fall under the legislative competence of the State. “The mandates of the vice-chancellor’s appointing authority have no direct bearing on the standards of higher education,” he said.
He proposed that the court dismiss the claim and impose costs.
Published – 03 Apr 2026 00:07 IST
