In late evening hearing, Madras High Court stays laws that got Governor's deemed assent through SC verdict

The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed the operation of amendments recently notified by the Tamil Nadu government that took away the Governor's powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors to various State-run Universities, and vested these powers with the State government instead. .The stay order was passed by a Vacation Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan at nearly 7 PM - beyond the Court's usual working hours - despite fervent requests by the State authorities to adjourn the matter at least till Thursday before passing any interim order. The Court held that the amendments complained of were ex-facie unconstitutional and therefore liable to be stayed, more so since it affects public interest. It clarified that it is not staying the whole of the amendments under challenge, but only that portion which takes away the Governor's powers in the appointment of University Vice-Chancellors. "The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes... We therefore stay the operation of the impugned amendment Acts to the extent they take away the power of appointment of the Vice Chancellors of the petition mentioned Universities from the hands of the Chancellor and vest the same in the Government," the order said. .Notably, when the order was dictated yesterday, judges' mic was on mute. The issue was flagged by Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate P Wilson, who appeared via video conferencing for the hearing, to no avail."I couldn't hear what Lordships dictated. Mic was muted," Wilson said. "Order will be uploaded," replied the Court, before eventually moving on to hear another case. .The order was passed on a plea by BJP leader K Venkatachalapathy, who had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) to challenge eight State Amendments that were deemed to have been passed by the Governor after the Supreme Court's recent verdict on the powers of State Governors. The Tamil Nadu government had notified ten State Acts in the official gazette on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment that declared the laws as “deemed to have been assented” to by Governor RN Ravi.It was the first such instance of a government in India operationalising a legislation without the assent of the Governor or the President, acting instead on the strength of a Supreme Court ruling under Article 142 of the Constitution.The petition before the High Court, filed through Advocate VR Shanmuganathan, challenged the replacement of the term "Chancellor" with the expression "Government" when it comes to provisions concerning the appointment of Vice Chancellors in State-run Universities.The petitioner contended that such amendments must be declared void for being inconsistent with the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act) and UGC regulations. The Gazette notification declaring these amendments to have been passed has also been challenged as violative of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. .Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu contended that the amendments under challenge were manifestly arbitrary. He argued that the amendments directly conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018.The matter concerns education, and that such matters should be vested in an authority that is above politics, he added. He urged the Court to stay the amendments, arguing that there are case laws to show that the Court is not powerless to stay executive actions. He also refuted the State's claim that there was no urgency to hear the matter today. In this regard, he submitted that search committees have already been constituted by the State to appoint Vice Chancellors in some universities, and that appointments may be made by the State soon. .In its order, the Court noted that there are caselaws to show that UGC Regulations will have primacy over State Legislation."When repugnancy between the impugned amendment Acts and the UGC Regulation is obvious and admitted, it is our judicial duty to apply the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as many as four recent decisions," it added. The Court also noted that admittedly, there was no stay order passed by the Supreme Court to prevent the High Court from taking up the matter before it. "When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not suspended the operation and applicability of Regulation 7.3 of the 2018 Regulations, we have to proceed on the footing that they are in force ... Having adopted the 2018 UGC Regulations, the State cannot adopt a procedure that militates against the said Regulations in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellors," it further said. .The State's arguments were led by Advocate General PS Raman, who maintained that no stay can be granted unless the laws under challenge are shown to be ex-facie unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights. He added that a related matter is already pending before the Supreme Court. .Wilson explained that the State has filed a plea before the Supreme Court, to transfer Venkatachalapathy's PIL to the top court. This matter was mentioned before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as well recently, Wilson said. The CJI had asked that the development be conveyed to the High Court, Wilson added. He further said that the matter is likely to be listed in a day or two before the Supreme Court. As such, he urged the High Court not to pass any orders for now. .When the Bench indicated that it would continue hearing the matter today, Wilson sought an adjournment till Thursday. "Lordship may have it tomorrow. One thing I have to say, lordship is compelling me to argue. I don't know if it would be proper...Post it tomorrow, it is already 6 o clock. I need 2 hours to argue," Wilson urged."Mr. Wilson, we are not compelling you to argue. It is up to you to use the opportunity or not... We reject your request. We are not pressurising you to argue," the Court replied. .In his ensuing arguments, Wilson contended that the Governor's role as the Chancellor has been retained; it is only that his powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors have been taken away. Wilson also alleged that the petitioner has annexed a forged Gazette notification in his plea, adding that this needs a serious inquiry. "This is not a real Gazette we have published. An inquiry by CBCID/ Vigilance has to be done. Come to page 621. This is not our Gazette. Where did he get it from? ... How he has forged this Gazette? He has to answer. We will file a memo that this Gazette is forged. Not only client, advocate is also answerable," Wilson said, while urging the Court to record his submission.AG Raman added that the petitioner has not shown how the amendments are inconsistent with UGC regulations. The UGC regulations do not specify that Chancellors must necessarily be Governors, he added. After hearing arguments till around 6.45 PM, the Court eventually dictated its interim order, in which it said that there was no reason for it to mechanically adjourn the hearing when the Supreme Court has not stayed High Court proceedings."If the Hon'ble Supreme Court had orally injuncted us from taking up this case and the same had been brought to our notice, we would have unhesitatingly kept our hands off. But, no such development has taken place. That is why we are unable to accede to the request made by the learned Advocate General for adjourning the case. We are on a short point. When we notice that the impugned amending Acts fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are unable to mechanically adjourn the proceeding," it said. .The matter will be heard next after eight weeks. .[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]