State amended nine varsities’ laws to bypass binding UGC regulations: T.N. Governor

The Tamil Nadu Governor and the University Grants Commission (UGC) found themselves in the Supreme Court in agreement with a petitioner who had challenged the State government’s authority to amend nine Acts, which took away the Governor’s power to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in State universities.

The petitioner in question, advocate K. Venkatachalapathy, had previously convinced the Madras High Court on May 21 to pass an interim order staying the amended Acts which clothed the State government, and not the Governor, with the power to appoint the VCs.

The State, represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, had responded to the interim order by approaching the Supreme Court. The apex court had issued notice to Mr. Venkatachalapathy; the Union government; the UGC; the Tamil Nadu Governor; and the Human Resources and Development Ministry.

In a counter-affidavit, the Governor replied that the amendments made by the State government were deliberately meant to “bypass” binding UGC Regulations.

“The legal framework mandates the process be in conformity with binding UGC Regulations, which the State government sought to bypass through the amendment Acts. The amendments to the university Acts cannot override binding constitutional norms or Central legislation. The allegations of delay in appointing the Vice-Chancellors are a result of States’ administrative decisions,” the Governor responded.

Similarly, the UGC also blamed the State of Tamil Nadu for violating the procedure for appointment of VCs.

The State, it argued, by exercising its legislative competence, bestowed the powers of appointment of Vice-Chancellor upon the government, thereby violating the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor prescribed under Clause 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018.

“The powers of the UGC, as regards maintenance of standards of higher education, are very broad in nature and are applicable equally to all universities. The petitioner’s [State government] oblique attempt to circumscribe the powers of the UGC is misconceived and is clearly an afterthought and is misplaced,” the UGC stated.

The State has argued that the High Court ordered a stay despite the Supreme Court, in an April 8 judgment, declaring that the Bills were granted ‘deemed assent’ by the Governor. The State government had notified the Acts following the judgment. It contended there was a strong presumption of constitutionality against laws passed by the legislature.

The State said its appeal had raised questions of law with wide ramifications pertaining to the issue of federalism and State autonomy to establish, regulate and administer State universities under Entry 32 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution along with the issues pertaining to judicial impropriety and discipline in keeping a hands-off approach.