The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an unusual late-evening order of the Madras High Court which had stayed the operation of Tamil Nadu laws shifting the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of State-run universities from the Governor to the State government.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi held that the High Court vacation bench had acted without giving the State a proper opportunity of hearing.
On that ground alone, the interim stay was quashed and the matter was sent back to the High Court for a fresh hearing.
The case has its roots in a controversial constitutional development. After a Supreme Court verdict on the powers of Governors, the Tamil Nadu government notified several Bills as “deemed to have been assented” to. Among them were amendments to State university laws which replaced the Governor, acting as Chancellor, with the State government in matters relating to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors.
These amendments were challenged before the Madras High Court through a petition by filed BJP leader K Venkatachalapathy. The petitioner argued that removing the Governor from the appointment process was unconstitutional and contrary to University Grants Commission (UG) regulations, which were said to require an independent and apolitical mechanism.
The matter came up before a vacation bench of the Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan High Court in May 2025. The hearing stretched beyond normal court hours. Despite repeated requests from the State to defer the matter by a day, the Bench proceeded to dictate an interim order at around 7 PM.
In that order, the High Court stayed the operation of the amendments, holding that they appeared to be ex facie unconstitutional. The stay was limited to the provisions that transferred the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the State government. The Court reasoned that the alleged conflict with UGC regulations raised serious constitutional concerns which warranted immediate intervention.
The manner and timing of the order drew attention. The State complained that it was effectively compelled to argue late in the evening and that the interim stay was granted without adequate hearing on complex constitutional issues. It also pointed out that related proceedings were already pending before the Supreme Court.
Aggrieved by the stay, the Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court against High Court’s interim order and also sought transfer of the pending High Court proceedings to the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the High Court had stayed duly enacted legislation without allowing it sufficient time to place its case.
The Supreme Court agreed that the manner in which the interim order was passed raised serious concerns. The Bench explained that the primary issue was not the merits of the amendments, but the procedure adopted by the High Court.
The Court observed that laws enacted by a legislature should not ordinarily be stayed without hearing the State fully. On this short ground, the Supreme Court set aside the interim stay order and remitted the matter to the Madras High Court for a fresh decision after hearing all parties.
The Court was also informed by the State that it did not intend to make any Vice-Chancellor appointments till the High Court passes its final order.
The top court then requested the Madras High Court to take up the matter expeditiously and decide it within six weeks. It directed that the case be placed before a bench presided over by the Chief Justice or any other appropriate bench.
The State was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and P Wilson. The plea was filed through Advocate Misha Rohatgi.
The respondent was represented by Senior Advocate DS Naidu.