Vice-Chancellor appointments row: Tamil Nadu challenges Madras High Court stay order in Supreme Court

The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's May 21 decision to stay the operation of operation of laws that took away the Tamil Nadu Governor's powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors to various State-run Universities, and vested these powers with the State government instead..The Tamil Nadu government has argued that the Madras High Court's interim stay order was passed without properly hearing the State and despite serious concerns about how the case was listed before a Vacation Bench of the High Court. The amending Acts under challenge were notified by the Tamil Nadu government in April but it was challenged only in May, shortly before the Vacation Bench was slated to sit, the State has highlighted. The State has added that the lawyer who filed the petition challenging these laws may have indulged in forum shopping. "The Writ Petition was filed during vacations, without pleading any urgency in the matter ... ... the petitioner has not pleaded anywhere in the Writ Petition why he did not challenge the 9 Acts before the regular Bench of the Court. Thus, it is a text book case of forum shopping ... the Division Bench did not even call for an explanation from the Registry of the High Court or the Petitioner but proceeded to hear the case with tearing hurry," the State's plea states..It has also highlighted that the stay order was passed at around 6.30 PM, beyond the High Court's usual hours. "Though it is not unusual for the vacation courts to sit beyond 4.45 to hear urgent matters, in the present case, when no action was contemplated by the State under the impugned laws before June, there was no need or cause for the Division Bench to show such alacrity in hearing this Writ Petition on one day, without giving any proper opportunity to the Petitioner-State," the State added. .The State has also questioned the High Court's decision to berate Senior Advocate P Wilson, who had appeared for the State's Higher Education Department. During the High Court hearing, Wilson had strongly objected to the High Court's insistence on hearing out the matter on May 21 instead of giving the State some more time to respond. Wilson had also pointed out that a petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Court had already been mentioned to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). As such, Wilson had urged the High Court not to take up the matter, since the Supreme Court is slated to hear the transfer plea soon. When the High Court declined to adjourn the case, Wilson said that he would make submissions since he was being compelled to do so. During arguments, he further pointed out that a gazette notification relied on by the petitioner was forged. This aspect needs to be enquired into, he contended, while urging the High Court to take up the matter another day. The High Court, however, refused to budge. Further, it also criticised Wilson, stating that his approach during arguments "was one of obstruction and not assistance." .In late evening hearing, Madras High Court stays laws that got Governor's deemed assent through SC verdict.Moreover, the High Court also noted that "interestingly", Wilson was opposing interim relief in this case, when he had welcomed the Supreme Court's stay in another case, concerning the implementation of farm laws.The propriety of making such remarks has now been questioned by the State government, which has termed the same as "extraneous reasons.""Such reasoning is neither legally sustainable nor logical and cannot form the basis of a judgement of a High Court... The impugned order is rife with personal attacks on the ld. Senior Counsel who appeared for the State, which ought not to be part of a judicial pronouncement," the plea says. Among other concerns, the State has also questioned why the High Court Bench had muted its mic while dictating the stay order, which made it difficult for counsel to hear what order had been passed. "Even while dictating the order, the Bench had for unknown reasons muted the Court’s mic and neither those in the Court nor those on the virtual court platform could hear the order being passed.".The State added that the interim High Court order has the effect of giving final relief at the interim stage. It has also maintained that contrary to the High Court's finding, there is no repugnancy between the Tamil Nadu Amendment Acts under challenge and any Central laws to presume that they are unconstitutional.It argues that the High Court ignored arguments that the University Grants Commission's Regulations (UGC Regulations) are not binding on States that do not adopt them.Tamil Nadu has not adopted the UGC regulation on Vice-Chancellor appointments (Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018), the State said.Rather, the procedure for appointing Vice-Chancellors is governed by the rules of each University, it added. Presently, the State of Tamil Nadu is also not receiving any grant-in-aid from UGC, the plea has highlighted.