Misplaced urgency: The Madras High Court has in effect undermined a Supreme Court ruling, Pg10

Key Highlights:

• The Madras High Court recently stayed Tamil Nadu’s amended Acts that allowed the state government to appoint Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) of 18 public universities.
• This decision effectively overrides a prior Supreme Court ruling which had upheld the Tamil Nadu Governor’s assent to pending Bills as constitutionally valid.
• The High Court cited violation of UGC Regulation 7.3 (2018) as its basis, reigniting the federal debate over UGC vs State legislation.

Legal Context:

• The Supreme Court (May 2025) upheld that 10 pending Bills (including V-C appointment bills) had received deemed assent due to gubernatorial delay.
• The Madras HC ruling came via a vacation bench (Justices Swaminathan & Lakshminarayanan) and stayed the implementation of these state Acts.
• Cited two SC precedents:
  • Professor Sreejith P.S. vs Dr. Rajasree (Kerala)
  • Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs State of Gujarat (Sardar Patel University)
  • In both cases, SC quashed appointments for violating UGC Regulations 7.3, which mandate how V-Cs are selected.

Core Constitutional Issue:

• Can UGC Regulations, a product of executive subordinate legislation, override state laws passed by the legislature?
• Article 254 of the Constitution offers that in a conflict between central and state laws, central law prevails—but only when passed by Parliament, not when made via subordinate rules (like UGC norms).

Governance Implications:

• Over 12 universities remain headless in Tamil Nadu due to the impasse.
• The SC had emphasised executive inaction by Governors and the need to uphold democratic legislative will.
• The HC’s urgency in granting the stay—without hearing the state fully or awaiting transfer to SC—has been criticised as judicial overreach.

Key Concepts:

• UGC Regulation 7.3: Governs constitution of search committees and eligibility criteria for Vice-Chancellors.
• Deemed Assent (Article 200 & 201): If a Governor does not act on a Bill for a prolonged time, assent is presumed.
• Separation of Powers: Courts must not interfere prematurely in matters where another constitutional body is already seized of the issue.

Significance:

• Highlights tension between judicial propriety, federalism, and legislative supremacy.
• Raises critical questions on whether regulatory bodies can override elected state legislatures.
• Could set a precedent on the limits of delegated legislation, especially in education governance.

Mains Mock Question:

Do subordinate legislation and regulations issued by bodies like the UGC hold primacy over state-enacted laws in matters of higher education? Critically examine with reference to recent judicial developments.