In a significant development concerning the constitutional friction between State Governments and Governors, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday set aside a controversial interim order passed by the Madras High Court. The High Court had, in a rare late-evening session in May 2025, stayed the operation of specific Tamil Nadu laws that shifted the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the State Government.

A three-judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, held that the High Court’s vacation bench had acted with "undue haste" and failed to provide the State Government with a fair and meaningful opportunity to present its case.

By quashing the stay on this procedural ground, the apex court has effectively restored the status quo regarding the contested legislation, while remanding the matter back to the Madras High Court for a fresh and expedited hearing on its merits.

The legal battle is rooted in a long-standing standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and the Raj Bhavan. Following a landmark Supreme Court ruling which clarified that Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills passed by the State Legislature, the Tamil Nadu government had notified several Bills as having received "deemed assent."

Among these were crucial amendments to various State University Acts. These amendments sought to strip the Governor—who acts as the Chancellor of State-run universities—of the exclusive power to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs), vesting that authority instead in the State Government. The government argued that the elected executive should have a greater say in academic administration to ensure alignment with state policy and public interest.

The amendments were immediately challenged in the Madras High Court by BJP leader K. Venkatachalapathy. The petitioner contended that the laws were ex-facie unconstitutional and violated University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, which mandate an independent and non-political process for VC appointments to maintain academic integrity.

In May 2025, during the summer vacation, the matter came before a Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan. What followed was a procedural anomaly that became the focal point of the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

The hearing at the High Court reportedly extended well beyond traditional court hours. Despite repeated pleas from the State’s counsel to defer the matter by even a single day to allow for better preparation, the Bench insisted on proceeding. At approximately 7:00 PM, the High Court dictated an interim order staying the operation of the laws. The High Court reasoned that the conflict with UGC norms raised "serious constitutional concerns" that necessitated an immediate freeze on the laws.

Aggrieved by the "midnight-style" stay, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court. Represented by a powerhouse legal team including Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and P. Wilson, the State raised two primary objections:

Violation of Natural Justice: The State argued that a law enacted by a sovereign legislature carries a presumption of constitutionality and should not be stayed in a hurried, late-evening session without giving the State a proper chance to file a counter-affidavit.
Procedural Propriety: The State highlighted that while the High Court stayed the laws, related matters concerning the Governor’s powers were already pending before the Supreme Court, making the High Court’s intervention premature.

On the other side, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the respondent, defended the High Court’s order. He argued that the urgency was justified because the State was moving to appoint VCs under the new laws, which would have created "irreversible complications" if the laws were later found to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, was careful not to delve deeply into the merits of the VC appointment laws. Instead, it focused squarely on the manner in which the stay was granted.

CJI Surya Kant observed that the "sanctity of legislative process" requires that any judicial stay on a statute must be preceded by a thorough and balanced hearing. The Bench noted that forcing the State to argue such a complex constitutional matter late in the evening, while denying a request for a short adjournment, was an approach that "raised serious concerns."

The Court remarked that while Courts have the power to sit late for matters of life and liberty (such as bail or stays on execution), the same urgency is rarely justified for staying duly enacted legislation.

The Key Directions:

Stay Quashed: The interim stay granted by the Madras High Court is set aside.
Remand for Fresh Hearing: The matter is sent back to the Madras High Court to be heard afresh.
Expedited Timeline: The High Court is requested to decide the matter within six weeks.
Bench Selection: The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court is directed to assign the case to an appropriate Bench.
State's Undertaking: The Supreme Court recorded the State’s statement that it would not proceed with any new Vice-Chancellor appointments until the High Court delivers its fresh decision.

This case is more than just a procedural dispute; it is a flashpoint in the evolving relationship between "The Elected" (State Governments) and "The Appointed" (Governors).

Across India—from West Bengal to Kerala and Tamil Nadu—State Governments have been trying to reduce the Governor’s influence in universities. They argue that Governors often use their role as Chancellor to block state-led initiatives. Conversely, proponents of the Governor’s power argue that the Governor acts as a "buffer" against political interference in higher education.

The Supreme Court’s decision today serves as a reminder to High Courts across the country to exercise "judicial restraint" when dealing with the validity of laws. By insisting on a proper hearing, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that while the judiciary is a check on the legislature, it must follow a process that is as transparent and robust as the laws it seeks to review.

The "Battle of the VCs" now moves back to Chennai. With the Supreme Court setting a six-week deadline, all eyes will be on the Madras High Court. The final outcome will determine who truly holds the keys to the ivory towers of Tamil Nadu’s higher education system—the Raj Bhavan or the Secretariat.

For now, the State Government breathes a sigh of relief as the "deemed assent" laws are no longer in a state of suspended animation, though the sword of judicial review still hangs over them.