NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the May 2025 order of the Madras HC that stayed the operation of 10 amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to make the state government, instead of governor, the appointing authority of Vice-Chancellors of various state universities.
Questioning the manner in which a vacation bench of the HC acted in a “tearing hurry” to stay the laws, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi quashed the HC’s interim order and directed the matter be listed before a bench presided by Chief Justice of the Madras High Court or any other appropriate bench for rehearing.
The SC-- while questioning as to why the vacation bench was examining the constitutionality of university statutes -- passed the order after hearing the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu against the HC order. The state had also filed a petition seeking to transfer the matter from the HC to the apex court. The bench, which requested the HC to decide the matter within six weeks, also recorded the state’s submission that no appointments will be made till the HC gives its verdict on the issue.
The 10 bills had come into force following the ‘deemed assent’ given by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu governor’s case. In May, a Madras HC vacation bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayan stayed the amendments after hearing a PIL filed by advocate K Venkatachalapathy seeking to declare all the amendments as null and void.
Appearing for the state, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the SC submitted that the statutes had come into force in April 2025 and that, after a month, the writ petition was moved with urgency during the summer vacation. He contended that the procedure adopted by the HC was fundamentally flawed as the stay was granted first and arguments were heard later. He also underscored the strong presumption of constitutionality attached to legislative enactments.
Senior Counsel P Wilson, argued that the PIL was filed by bypassing the Madurai Bench of the Madras HC, though the petitioner falls within the Madurai Bench’s territorial jurisdiction.