Context:
- The Madras High Court (HC) has stayed the operation of amended Tamil Nadu Acts that empower the State Government to appoint Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) of 18 public universities.
- This decision has effectively undermined a recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling (May 2025) which upheld the constitutional validity of the Governor’s deemed assent to pending Bills, including those related to V-C appointments.
- The HC relied on UGC Regulation 7.3 (2018), reigniting debates over federalism, delegated legislation, and judicial propriety.
Key Highlights:
High Court Ruling and Reasoning:
- A vacation bench of the Madras HC (Justices G.R. Swaminathan and Lakshminarayanan) stayed the implementation of the amended state laws.
- The stay was granted on the ground that the amendments prima facie violated UGC Regulation 7.3, which prescribes:
- Composition of Search-cum-Selection Committees
- Eligibility and selection procedures for Vice-Chancellors
- The HC acted without a detailed hearing of the State and without awaiting transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court, drawing criticism.
Supreme Court Background (May 2025):
- The SC held that 10 pending Tamil Nadu Bills had received deemed assent due to prolonged gubernatorial inaction.
- Emphasised:
- Democratic legislative will
- The constitutional impropriety of indefinite delay by Governors
- This ruling strengthened state legislative autonomy in higher education governance.
Precedents Cited by the HC:
- Professor Sreejith P.S. vs Dr. Rajasree (Kerala)
- Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs State of Gujarat (Sardar Patel University)
- In both cases, the SC had quashed V-C appointments for non-compliance with UGC Regulation 7.3.
- However, those cases did not involve a direct conflict with a validly enacted state law.
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Issue: Conflict between UGC Regulations and State legislation on V-C appointments.
- Causes:
- Overlapping jurisdiction in education (Concurrent List)
- Increasing role of regulatory bodies via delegated legislation
- Key Articles:
- Article 200 & 201: Governor’s assent and deemed assent
- Article 254: Repugnancy between Central and State laws
- Key Regulation:
- UGC Regulation 7.3 (2018): Governs V-C selection process
- Impact:
- Over 12 universities in Tamil Nadu remain headless
- Administrative paralysis in higher education institutions
Relevant Mains Points:
- Core Constitutional Question:
- Can subordinate legislation (UGC Regulations) override laws passed by a State Legislature?
- Legal Position:
- Under Article 254, Central law prevails only if enacted by Parliament, not if framed as executive regulations.
- UGC norms derive authority from the UGC Act, but remain delegated legislation, not plenary law.
- Governance and Federalism Concerns:
- Education lies in the Concurrent List, requiring cooperative federalism, not unilateral regulatory dominance.
- The HC stay appears to dilute the SC’s emphasis on curbing gubernatorial inaction.
- Separation of Powers:
- Judicial restraint is expected when:
- The Supreme Court is already seized of the issue
- Legislative intent has been clearly expressed
- Judicial restraint is expected when:
- Way Forward:
- Clarify the hierarchy between Parliamentary law, delegated legislation, and State Acts.
- Evolve harmonised national standards through consultation rather than judicial overrides.
- Ensure judicial discipline and consistency, especially across constitutional courts.
- Protect state autonomy in university governance while maintaining academic standards.