Tamil Nadu Defends State Power in Vice-Chancellor Appointments
In a significant legal development, the Tamil Nadu higher education department presented its stance before the Madras High Court on Thursday, asserting that a vice-chancellor (VC) of a university is not classified as teaching staff. Consequently, the department argued that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018 do not apply to VCs, thereby supporting the state government's authority in their appointment process.
State's Argument on Administrative Convenience
Represented by senior advocate P Wilson, the department emphasized that the chancellor and VCs are officers of the university. The department stated, "Shifting the powers of appointment from the chancellor to the state government on administrative convenience cannot be termed to be in conflict with the UGC Regulations." This position was detailed in a counter affidavit filed in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging recent amendments to 10 state university legislations.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The amendments in question empowered the state government to appoint VCs to universities, a role previously held by the governor. The PIL, moved by advocate K Venkatachalapathy, led to a temporary stay on these amendments during the 2025 Christmas holidays by a vacation bench of the High Court. However, this stay was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court, which remitted the PIL back to the High Court for a full hearing after ensuring the state had adequate opportunity to respond.
Constitutional Basis for State Authority
According to the department, Entry 32 of List II of the Constitution grants the state sole legislative competence over matters such as the incorporation, regulation, and winding up of universities. The department argued that this entry should not be restricted merely to the establishment of universities. It highlighted that since the state government invests resources from the public exchequer, it must also retain the power to administer and regulate these institutions effectively.
Current Status and Next Steps
When the plea came up for hearing before the first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on Thursday, the department filed its counter affidavit. The bench took the counter on record and adjourned the hearing to April 9, allowing for further deliberation on this contentious issue.
This case underscores the ongoing debate between state autonomy and central regulatory frameworks in higher education governance, with potential implications for university administration across India.
