Governor not bound by Ministers' advice for VC appointments under Kannur University Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that the Kerala Governor, being the ex-officio Chancellor of Kannur University, is not bound by the advice of the Kerala government's Council of Ministers when it comes to appointing Vice-Chancellors to the University [Dr Premachandran Keezhoth and anr vs The Chancellor Kannur University and anr]..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stressed that under the Kannur University Act of 1996, the Chancellor is the sole judge when it comes to Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointments, and not a mere titular head.."It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act, 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor. No other person even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal," the Court concluded. .In the selection of the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor's opinion is final in all respects, the Court held. Even when it comes to reappointing the Vice-Chancellor, the main consideration to prevail upon the Chancellor is the interest of the university, the Court added..The Supreme Court made the observations while quashing the reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Raveendran as the Vice Chancellor of Kannur University..The re-appointment of Dr. Raveendran as the Kannur Vice-Chancellor had been embroiled in political controversy ever since it was first announced in 2021.After he was re-appointed, the Kerala Governor Mohammed Arif Khan claimed that he was pressured by the CPI (M)-led State government to sign off on the re-appointment.Meanwhile, the appointment was challenged by Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth before the Kerala High Court on the ground that Dr. Raveendran was over the age limit of 60 years when he was reappointed to the post. Dr. Raveendran was 61 years old at the time of his reappointment.The High Court upheld Dr. Raveendran's reappointment, which was challenged before the Supreme Court in appeal.On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the age limit of 60 years only applied to fresh appointments and not reappointments.However, since the State government was found to have excessively interfered in the 2021 reappointment of Dr. Raveendran, the same was set aside and the appeal against the Kerala High Court's decision was allowed..The Supreme Court explained that there are several other functions performed by the Governor under the Constitution of India where he is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, the Court pointed out that the Kannur University Act makes a clear-cut distinction between the roles played by the elected government and the Governor when it comes to the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor. The Court proceeded to rule that while performing the function of the University Chancellor, the Governor acts "only in his personal capacity", which is different from his role as the titular head of a State. "The powers and duties exercised and performed by him under a statute related to the University, as its Chancellor, have absolutely no relation to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties by him while he holds office as the Governor of the State."In other words, the Chancellor is not bound by the advice of Ministers when it comes to appointing the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University, the Court said..Interestingly, the Court found that although the Kerala Governor, being the University's Chancellor, had an important role to play in Vice-Chancellor appointments, he appeared to have not applied his independent mind when it came to Dr. Raveendran's reappointment..Expressing disapproval over the apparent failure to do so, the Court said, "The Chancellor was required to discharge his statutory duties in accordance with law and guided by the dictates of his own judgment and not at the behest of anybody else. Law does not recognise any such extra constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion. Any such interference amounts to dictation from political superior and has been condemned by courts on more than one occasions.".The Court also said it was perplexed by the Kerala Governor's submission before the top court that the reappointment was not valid primarily because it violated University Grants Commission (UGC) norms. The Court pointed out that the Governor need not have cited UGC norms when it was the Governor who was required to independently apply his mind under the Kannur University Act. "The UGC Regulations are silent in so far as reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor is concerned," the Court further noted. .[Read Judgment]