Madras High Court defends its stay on TN laws, objects to claim that it tinkers with SC verdict on Governors

The Madras High Court on Wednesday took strong exception to an argument that its decision to examine the validity of amendments which took away the Tamil Nadu Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors in State-run Universities, may amount to tinkering with a Supreme Court decision on the powers of Governors. .A Vacation Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan had yesterday stayed these amendments to the extent it they took away the Governor's powers when it came to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and vested such powers with the State instead. .During arguments, the State's Higher Education Department, represented by Senior Advocate P Wilson, had highlighted that the laws under challenge were enacted after the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to give them 'deemed assent.' The said Supreme Court verdict was passed in a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi for delays in granting assent to the various State Bills. This verdict also clarified the limits set on the powers of State Governors under the Constitution. The High Court, however, did not take well to Wilson's suggestion that it should refrain from passing any stay on the amendments complained of, more so since the State has filed a petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. ."Shri P.Wilson made a preposterous submission that we were virtually reviewing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- The Governor of Tamil Nadu. No submission can be more outrageous than this. We are mindful of our position. We know that we have to give the highest respect to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not need lectures from Shri P.Wilson on this score," the Court said. .It also observed that the Supreme Court did not test the constitutional validity of the amendments in question. Therefore, there was no bar on the High Court to refrain from examining such aspects, the Court said. "We believe in judicial discipline. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision was not concerned with the constitutionality of the impugned provisions. When the learned Advocate General at one point claimed that the petitioner's Senior Counsel is merely reiterating the contentions advanced in the said decision, we called upon the learned Advocate General to draw our attention to the relevant paragraphs, where the contentions now advanced stood rejected. The learned Advocate General made a vain attempt and subsequently gave up this objection altogether," the order said..Further, the Court noted that even if a transfer petition was pending before the top court, there was no stay order passed to prevent the High Court from proceeding with the matter."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 proceedings. It is this primary consideration that impels us to grant interim relief," the Court said..The High Court further found that it was a fit case to grant interim relief, as the State laws appeared to be in conflict with regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC).Notably, it also rejected arguments by the State that there was no urgency for a vacation bench of the Court to grant such relief. Justice must remain accessible whether or not the Court is on vacation, the Bench opined.."It is true that the High Court is on Vacation and that we are sitting as Vacation Bench Judges. To us, it should not make any difference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has observed that Court Vacation sittings should be rechristened 'partial working days'. We take inspiration from the said observation. Judges can be on vacation, Courts should not be on vacation. Access to justice should always be available. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes. That is why we propose to intervene then and there," it said..It added that the State had more than enough time to respond to the plea, and hence, rejected requests for more time to file a counter-affidavit."Pure questions of law have been addressed. In our respectful view, a week was more than sufficient for the State to file its written response. We say with utmost sadness and regret that the approach of Shri P.Wilson was one of obstruction and not assistance. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General even while insisting that the case should be adjourned, offered his assistance by addressing the Court on all the legal issues," it said..It proceeded to stay the amendments complained of, reasoning that,"The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the impugned amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer.".Notably, the order was dictated yesterday at nearly 7 PM, after the Court's usual working hours and while the judges' mic was muted.Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and Advocate Shanmuganathan represented the petitioner, a BJP leader and lawyer based in Tirunelveli..The State's arguments were led by Advocate General PS Raman, assisted by Advocate Edwin Prabakar. .Senior Advocate P Wilson appeared for the Higher Education Department. Additional Solicitor General AR L Sundaresan assisted by Advocate V Sudha appeared for the UGC..[Read Order]