 |
|
The Madras High Court has stayed Tamil Nadu laws that sought to transfer the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of state-run universities from the Governor (in his/her capacity as Chancellor) to the State government. This decision arises from a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment acts enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The court's intervention highlights a conflict between state and central legislation, specifically concerning the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, and raises critical questions about the balance of power between the state government and the Governor in matters of higher education. The stay order, issued by a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, underscores the court's concern that the amendments are ex facie unconstitutional and repugnant to existing central laws. The heart of the issue lies in the perceived conflict between the Tamil Nadu amendment acts and the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. The UGC Regulations clearly stipulate that only the Visitor/Chancellor can appoint a Vice-Chancellor from among the names recommended by a search-cum-selection committee. The Madras High Court found that by conferring this power on the State government instead of the Governor, the amendment acts directly contravene the 2018 Regulations. The court's reasoning is further bolstered by precedents set by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the primacy of the UGC Regulations over state laws in matters of education. The case of Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi versus State of Gujarat (2022) is cited as a key precedent, where the apex court emphasized that UGC Regulations, enacted under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956, become part of the Act and thus carry significant legal weight. The Supreme Court has also articulated the principle of repugnancy, enshrined in Article 254 of the Constitution, which dictates that in the event of a conflict between state and central legislation on a subject in the Concurrent List (List III), the central legislation shall prevail. This principle is crucial in understanding the Madras High Court's decision. Because education falls under the Concurrent List, the UGC Regulations, as central legislation, take precedence over the Tamil Nadu amendment acts. Any appointment of a Vice-Chancellor that violates the UGC Regulations can be challenged through a writ of quo warranto, which questions the legal authority of the appointee. Several other Supreme Court verdicts reinforce this position, including State of West Bengal versus Anindya Sundar Das, where the court reiterated that even if state laws allow the appointment of Vice-Chancellors by the State Government, such appointments would be in violation of the UGC Regulations and therefore invalid. The Madras High Court, therefore, felt compelled to apply the law as declared by the Supreme Court in these numerous recent decisions, finding the repugnancy between the amendment acts and the UGC Regulations to be “obvious and admitted.” The court addressed the question of whether it had the power to stay the operation of laws passed by the legislature. Justice Swaminathan referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil versus State of Maharashtra (2021), which clarified that while it is unusual to pass an interim order that stultifies statutory provisions, such orders are permissible when an enactment is ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to established law. The judge also recalled the Supreme Court's own stay on the three farm laws in 2021, demonstrating that the judiciary can intervene when legislation is deemed to be fundamentally flawed. The court rejected arguments from the Advocate General and counsel for the Higher Education department that sufficient time should be given for the State government to file its counter affidavit and that the stay application should not be heard during the summer vacation. The Bench emphasized that access to justice should always be available and that the court could not ignore an unconstitutional legislation, regardless of whether it was a vacation period. The court also addressed the argument that its interference with the amendment acts would amount to reviewing the Supreme Court’s earlier verdict in the Governor’s assent case. The Division Bench vehemently denied this, stating that the Supreme Court's earlier decision was not concerned with the constitutionality of the specific provisions now under challenge. The court emphasized its respect for Supreme Court decisions and stated that it was merely applying the law as laid down by the apex court in prior cases dealing with the primacy of UGC regulations. The court saw its duty as preventing an unconstitutional process from proceeding, which it believed would cause irreparable injury and harm public interest. The stay order issued by the Madras High Court underscores the importance of maintaining standards in higher education and adhering to the established legal framework governing university appointments. The decision is a significant development in the ongoing debate about the autonomy of universities and the respective roles of the state government and the Governor in their administration. The ultimate resolution of this issue will likely have far-reaching implications for the governance of higher education institutions in Tamil Nadu and potentially in other states as well.
The core of the legal dispute centers on the interpretation and application of Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. The article provides that if a State law is repugnant to a Central law which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then the Central law, whether passed before or after the State law, shall prevail, and the State law shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. The subject of 'education' is included in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution), meaning both the Union and the State Governments can legislate on it. However, Article 254 operates in such a way that in case of conflict, the Central law overrides the State law. In the context of the Madras High Court's decision, the 'Central law' in question is the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and the regulations framed thereunder, specifically the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. These regulations, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases, including Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi versus State of Gujarat, prescribe that the appointment of Vice-Chancellors must be made by the Visitor/Chancellor, based on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee. The 'State law' is the set of amendment acts passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which sought to transfer the power of appointing Vice-Chancellors from the Governor (in his/her capacity as Chancellor) to the State government. The Madras High Court found these amendment acts to be repugnant to the UGC Regulations, as they directly contradicted the requirement that the Chancellor make the appointment. The court reasoned that because education is a subject in the Concurrent List, and because the UGC Regulations are a Central law made under a Central Act, the UGC Regulations must prevail. Therefore, the court stayed the operation of the amendment acts to the extent that they took away the power of appointment of Vice-Chancellors from the Chancellor and vested it in the State government. The court's decision is not a final determination of the constitutionality of the amendment acts. It is an interim order, pending a full hearing on the matter. However, the court's reasoning strongly suggests that it is likely to find the amendment acts to be unconstitutional, based on the principle of repugnancy. The case also raises questions about the role of the Governor in the administration of state universities. The Governor typically serves as the Chancellor of state universities by virtue of their office. As Chancellor, the Governor exercises certain powers, including the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors. The amendment acts sought to curtail this power, transferring it to the State government. The State government likely argued that this was necessary to ensure greater control over the administration of state universities. However, the Madras High Court's decision suggests that any attempt to curtail the Governor's powers in this area must comply with the provisions of the Constitution and the applicable Central laws.
The Madras High Court's decision also highlights the complexities of the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. The court is tasked with upholding the Constitution and ensuring that laws passed by the legislature are consistent with the Constitution. In this case, the court found that the amendment acts were likely to be unconstitutional, and therefore it stayed their operation. This is a significant power, as it allows the court to prevent laws from taking effect, even if they have been passed by the legislature. However, the court is also mindful of the need to respect the legislature's role in making laws. The court has stated that it is not reviewing the Supreme Court's earlier decision in the Governor's assent case. The court's decision is based on the principle of repugnancy and the primacy of Central law over State law in matters of education. This principle is well-established in Indian law, and the court has applied it in a straightforward manner. The Madras High Court decision serves as a reminder of the checks and balances that are built into the Indian Constitution. The legislature has the power to make laws, but the judiciary has the power to review those laws and ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution. This system of checks and balances is designed to protect the rights of citizens and ensure that the government operates within the bounds of the law. The legal battle over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in Tamil Nadu is likely to continue. The State government may appeal the Madras High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will then have the final say on the constitutionality of the amendment acts. In the meantime, the stay order issued by the Madras High Court remains in effect, and the Governor will continue to have the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors of state universities. The long-term implications of this case are significant. It could affect the balance of power between the state government and the Governor in matters of higher education. It could also affect the autonomy of state universities. The ultimate outcome of this case will have a significant impact on the future of higher education in Tamil Nadu. The case underscores the intricate dance between legislative intent and judicial review, especially in a federal structure where subjects are concurrently governed. It will be intriguing to watch how the Supreme Court, if it hears the appeal, further clarifies the interplay between UGC regulations, state autonomy, and the Governor's role, thereby setting precedents for other states grappling with similar jurisdictional issues in the realm of higher education.