Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

T.N. legislature fully empowered to take away power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from Governor: State tells Madras High Court

April 02, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance GS2 (Federalism Centre-State Relations Governor's Role Constitutional Provisions)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Tamil Nadu government told the Madras High Court that the state legislature is fully empowered to transfer the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of state universities from the Governor to the state government, in response to a writ petition challenging nine 2025 amendment acts.
  • The state's argument is rooted in the doctrine of legislative competence: education (including universities) is in the Concurrent List, and state legislatures can amend state university Acts to redefine the Chancellor's powers.
  • The Madras High Court had previously (May 2025) stayed ten similar amendment acts passed by Tamil Nadu, terming them "ex facie unconstitutional" as they conflicted with Supreme Court judgments defining the Governor's role.
  • Tamil Nadu subsequently moved the Supreme Court against the HC stay; the apex court issued notice and tagged the case with similar matters.
  • The dispute is part of a wider pattern of opposition-ruled states (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Telangana) clashing with centrally-appointed Governors over university appointments.

Static Topic Bridges

Governor as Chancellor — Constitutional and Statutory Framework

In India, the Governor of a state is typically the ex-officio Chancellor of state public universities by virtue of the respective state university Acts (not the Constitution directly). As Chancellor, the Governor acts independently of the Council of Ministers — unlike in the role of constitutional Governor where he acts on the advice of the cabinet under Article 163. The power to appoint the Vice-Chancellor is exercised by the Chancellor (Governor) based on recommendations from a Search Committee.

  • Article 163: Council of Ministers aids and advises the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except where the Governor is required by the Constitution to act in his discretion.
  • As Chancellor, the Governor's power derives from state university statutes, not the Constitution itself — meaning state legislatures can, in principle, amend these statutes to vest the appointment power elsewhere.
  • The Supreme Court, in multiple judgments (including those arising from Kerala and AP disputes), has held that the Governor must act on the recommendations of the Search Committee and cannot unilaterally appoint his own candidates.
  • Several states (Tamil Nadu since 2022, Maharashtra, West Bengal) have moved to transfer or dilute the Governor's VC appointment role, triggering constitutional litigation.

Connection to this news: Tamil Nadu's argument in the Madras HC builds directly on this distinction — the legislature can modify university statutes because VC appointment is a statutory, not constitutional, power of the Governor.

Centre-State Conflict Over University Governance

University education is in the Concurrent List (Entry 25, List III), meaning both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on it — but Parliament's law prevails in case of conflict under Article 254. The University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 (and subsequent versions) specify norms for VC qualifications and appointments at the central level, but their applicability to state universities has been contested. The Governor-versus-state conflict over universities has become a proxy battle over the broader question of the Governor's partisan conduct in opposition-ruled states.

  • Entry 25, List III (Concurrent List): "education, including technical education, medical education and universities."
  • Article 254: If state law is repugnant to central law on a Concurrent List subject, the central law prevails — unless the state law received Presidential assent.
  • UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degrees) Regulations: have been the subject of judicial scrutiny for their applicability to state-funded universities.
  • Governors withholding assent: Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi (since removed) had withheld assent to multiple bills, triggering the Supreme Court's ruling in November 2023 that the Governor must act within a reasonable time and cannot withhold assent indefinitely.
  • State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2023): SC held that the Governor returned bills "for reconsideration" without a sound constitutional basis; if the cabinet re-sends a bill, the Governor is bound to give assent.

Connection to this news: The 2025 amendment acts are the latest iteration of Tamil Nadu's legislative pushback against the Governor's role in university governance — coming after multiple rounds of litigation at both the HC and SC level.

Legislative Competence and Doctrine of Repugnancy

Under the Indian Constitution's Seventh Schedule, the distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and state legislatures is governed by three Lists. States have exclusive power over List II (State List); Parliament over List I (Union List); both can legislate over List III (Concurrent List). When a state law on a Concurrent subject conflicts with a central law, Article 254(1) makes the central law prevail. However, under Article 254(2), if the state law received Presidential assent, it can override the central law in that state.

  • "Repugnancy" under Article 254: exists when both laws cannot stand simultaneously, or when the state law occupies the same field as a central law directly or indirectly.
  • Madras HC's May 2025 stay: the court found the TN amendment acts suffered from "repugnancy" and were "ex facie unconstitutional" — suggesting they conflicted with either UGC regulations or with Supreme Court judgments on the Governor's role.
  • Presidential assent route: Tamil Nadu can seek Presidential assent for its university amendment acts, which would insulate them from the repugnancy challenge — but Presidential assent is ultimately a Union government decision.
  • Doctrine of pith and substance: courts look at the dominant character of a law to determine which List it primarily falls under.

Connection to this news: Tamil Nadu's argument that the legislature is "fully empowered" is a claim about legislative competence; the HC's concern (and the writ petitioner's argument) is about repugnancy with central law and constitutional limits on stripping Governors of constitutionally-recognised functions.

Key Facts & Data

  • Tamil Nadu amendment acts challenged: nine 2025 acts (and previously ten 2025 acts, HC stayed ten in May 2025).
  • Madras HC stay (May 2025): termed the acts "ex facie unconstitutional" and suffering from "repugnancy."
  • Supreme Court: issued notice on TN's challenge; tagged with similar pending matters.
  • University education: Entry 25, List III (Concurrent List).
  • Governor as Chancellor: derives from state university statutes, not the Constitution.
  • Article 163: Governor acts on advice of Council of Ministers except in discretionary matters.
  • Article 254: repugnancy — central law prevails on Concurrent List subjects unless state law has Presidential assent.
  • Governor as constitutional head: appointed by the President under Article 155; holds office during the pleasure of the President (Article 156).