Madras HC stays Tamil Nadu amendments on vice-chancellor appointments despite state's objection
In a significant intervention amid an escalating tug-of-war between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor's office, the Madras High Court Wednesday stayed the operation of a series of amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly last year that sought to make the state government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for vice-chancellors of state-run universities.
A vacation Bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan issued the interim order after a marathon hearing that stretched until 7 pm, rejecting the state's request to defer the matter until after summer vacation. The ruling came in response to a PIL filed by K Venkatachalapathy, a practicing advocate from Tirunelveli and a Bharatiya Janata Party leader.
The PIL challenged the constitutional validity of the state amendments to 10 university Acts on 56 grounds, primarily arguing that the changes were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which prescribe the process for Vice-Chancellor appointments. The petitioner contended that the legislation compromised the autonomy of universities and allowed for excessive political interference.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu asserted that the role of the Governor—as Chancellor of State universities—ought to remain apolitical, much like the Speaker in a legislature. 'Universities must be insulated from political power,' he said. 'The chancellor, being above politics, should continue to guide the academic institutions free of government overreach.'
The court's interim stay sparked strong objections from the state government. Advocate-General P S Raman and senior counsel P Wilson, representing the Chief Secretary and Higher Education Secretary, argued there was no urgency warranting a hearing during the court's vacation. 'Only the process for appointments has begun. The last date to receive applications is June 5. The apprehension that something will happen tomorrow is unfounded,' the AG said.
They pointed out that the state had already filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to consolidate all similar PILs challenging the amendments. The apex court, according to Wilson, had orally instructed the state to inform the HC about the pending transfer plea. 'The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the broader issue. For the High Court to press ahead despite this is judicial impropriety,' Wilson told the Bench. 'We are being compelled to argue here even as the matter awaits consideration before the CJI.'
The Higher Education Secretary, C Samayamoorthy, also submitted a memo asserting that the petition was politically motivated, filed by a functionary of the opposition party. He argued that there was no grave urgency and that the State ought to have been allowed sufficient time to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the 56 points raised.
Wilson went further, alleging 'forum shopping' by the petitioner, suggesting that the choice of approaching the second vacation bench was deliberate. 'Havens are not going to fall. This is a move designed only to stall the process. There is no urgency,' he said. He also noted that the amendments received de facto assent from the Governor following the intervention of the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings.
Defending the legality of the amendments, the AG argued that laws enacted by the State legislature prevail over UGC regulations, so long as they do not contravene a central law. 'A state legislation can only be stayed when it is glaringly unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary. Neither is the case here,' he said, adding that the UGC lacks the authority to constitute search committees for vice-chancellor appointments. Despite these arguments, the Division Bench held firm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Guidelines modified for preferential appointment in T.N. government service for persons who studied in Tamil medium
Candidates who did not attend Class I but pursued education eventually under the Right to Education (RTE) Act with Tamil as the medium of instruction up to the prescribed qualification, would be able to benefit from the 20% preferential appointment in Tamil Nadu government service, given to persons who studied in Tamil medium (PSTM). The State government has recently modified its guidelines in this regard. According to the modification issued by Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam for the Human Resources Management Department to the guidelines in this regard, candidates who could not join Class I but who joined schools under the RTE Act between Classes II and VIII with Tamil as the medium of instruction and passed, would be able to obtain preferential appointment in Tamil Nadu government service, if they meet other conditions. The modification in guidelines also allowed those candidates who have studied in other States with Tamil as the medium of instruction and resumed their education in Tamil Nadu and continued in Tamil as the medium of instruction from the class they joined in the State. 'They should obtain certificates from all the educational institutions that their medium of instruction was Tamil upto the prescribed qualification,' it said. The modification issued by the Human Resources Management Department followed a judgment of the Madras High Court delivered in March 2024 and several representations to the State government requesting to allow those who went to Nila Oli Pallis, those who went to schools only from Class II, III, VI or V and those who could not pursue formal education but completed Class VIII, X, XI and XII as private candidates with Tamil as the medium of instruction. The modification issued to the guidelines is expected to benefit candidates who might have gone to Nila Oli Pallis (moonlight schools or night schools) that are set up by district administrations to get students, who were out of formal education and were involved in work in the daytime to get education between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. It is also expected to benefit candidates who did not follow the formal education from Class I but completed their schooling under RTE Act, among others.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
When Rajinikanth chose reconciliation over rhetoric with Karnataka during the 2008 'Kuselan' controversy
In 2008, ahead of the release of his film 'Kuselan,' Superstar found himself at the center of a storm over the long-standing between and . During a Tamil film industry protest in Chennai demanding the implementation of the Supreme Court's order on the water issue, Rajinikanth made strong remarks urging the Karnataka government to release water. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now His words, though echoing the sentiments of Tamil Nadu, sparked a sharp backlash in Karnataka. A ban looms over the film Pro-Kannada groups responded swiftly, calling for a ban on the release of 'Kuselan' across Karnataka. The situation escalated, and distributors in the state began to pull back, fearing violence and loss. Realizing the gravity of the situation and how it could impact his fans and the film industry, Rajinikanth decided to take a conciliatory path. He issued a public apology to the people and government of Karnataka, stating that he did not intend to hurt anyone's sentiments. The superstar steps back for peace In a televised message, Rajinikanth said, 'If my words have hurt the people of Karnataka, I sincerely apologize.' His heartfelt gesture was seen as a move to diffuse tensions and restore peace. The apology was widely circulated and helped ease the pressure around the film's release. Following this, 'Kuselan' was allowed to be released in Karnataka, although with limited screening due to lingering protests. A moment that defined the man This incident remains a key moment in Rajinikanth's political and public image, portraying him as a statesman-like figure who prioritized harmony over confrontation. His balanced response was appreciated by many, even as some in Tamil Nadu debated the need for an apology. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Nonetheless, Rajinikanth's 2008 move is still recalled today as a rare instance of a megastar navigating the political sensitivities between two states with restraint and maturity. This incident is now cited in contrast to current controversies, like 's 'Thug Life' and the Kannada language row, where no apology was issued. Rajinikanth's gesture is viewed as a diplomatic move that helped protect his film's release and maintain public goodwill.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
