The Madras High Court has put a temporary stop to the Tamil Nadu government's recently enacted laws that would have granted the state government the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in state-run universities. This decision, made by a division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshmi Narayanan on Wednesday, comes amid strong opposition from the Tamil Nadu government, which argued against the urgency of hearing the case.

The stayed provision was part of a set of bills that received deemed assent following a Supreme Court ruling concerning the powers of the Governor. The petitioner, an advocate and BJP member, argued that the amendments contradict the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations and violate the constitutional distribution of powers. According to the petitioner, state universities are recognized under the UGC Act, and any conflicting state amendments, especially those concerning VC appointments, infringe upon the constitutional framework.

This legal challenge is the latest development in an ongoing conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi regarding the appointment of VCs. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court directed both parties to resolve their disagreements. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu government introduced ten measures pertaining to universities, seeking the authority to appoint and remove VCs and designate members for key university bodies.

The High Court's interim stay has been described as a setback for the ruling DMK government and a moral victory for Governor Ravi. The court questioned the Tamil Nadu law's potential conflict with UGC rules. The state government has opposed the case, stating that it was taken up in haste and that the government did not have enough time to file a reply.

The legislation in question aimed to shift the power of VC appointments from the Governor, who traditionally serves as the Chancellor of state universities, to the state government. The government argued that this change was necessary to address administrative irregularities and ensure effective governance of the universities. They also pointed to the Punchhi Commission's recommendation that Governors should not be vested with powers that lead to conflicts between the state government and the Governor's office.

The court's decision underscores the complex relationship between constitutional principles, state power, and the autonomy of educational institutions. It also highlights the ongoing debate about the role of the Governor in state universities and the extent to which the state government can exercise control over these institutions. Further court proceedings are anticipated to determine the ultimate outcome and its impact on higher education administration in Tamil Nadu.