The Kerala High Court has definitively ruled that the governor of Kerala—acting as chancellor of state universities—exceeded his legal authority by unilaterally appointing temporary vice-chancellors at two prominent institutions without consulting the state government, thereby violating the respective University Acts. The bench, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and P. V. Balakrishnan, reaffirmed that the appointment of Dr. K. Sivaprasad at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Ciza Thomas at the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology (Digital University) was legally unsustainable, as each appointment ignored the mandatory requirement of state government recommendation. The Court underscored that acts of this kind could not be justified by recourse to broader UGC regulations or the governor’s perceived discretionary powers.
The controversy began when both universities found themselves temporarily without vice-chancellors. The governor, citing his ex-officio role as chancellor, issued notifications appointing Dr. Sivaprasad and Ciza Thomas to fill the vacancies on a temporary basis. These actions took place despite the state government’s absence of endorsement—a direct contravention of the Kerala University Act's provision mandating consultation with and recommendation by the government. The governor’s office argued that the interim appointments were compelled by administrative exigency and rooted in his constitutional powers, pointing to the National Education Policy and past Supreme Court dicta which they interpreted as granting independent authority to the chancellor, even temporarily.
The state government promptly challenged the appointments in the High Court, arguing that under Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act and the parallel provision in the Digital University Act, the chancellor's power to appoint even interim vice-chancellors is expressly conditional upon the state government's formal recommendation. According to this statutory scheme, the governor could not bypass the process—even temporarily—without violating legislative intent and process. Moreover, the Acts delineate a six-month maximum for temporary appointments, subject to procedural compliance, which had been disregarded in both cases.
The High Court scrutinized these claims and observed that the plain text of the University Acts leaves no room for assertion of independent authority by the chancellor to appoint vice-chancellors unilaterally. While the governor’s status as ex-officio chancellor could be construed as granting administrative powers, these are always subject to the structure and checks embedded in the law. The division bench emphasized that the chancellor must exercise powers in harmony with the Act, and cannot override the government's voice simply to fill vacancies. The statutory requirement is clear: even appointing interim vice-chancellors must follow the same process of state government recommendation that binds permanent appointments.
Equally, the High Court rejected references to UGC regulations and Supreme Court precedents like Premachandran Keezhoth, noting that no national regulation can override the state legislature's explicit procedural mandate. The Court clarified that UGC rules were meant to supplement, not supplant, state law. Educational continuity, it noted, should never come at the cost of breaching statutory processes. The decision reached was unequivocal: both appointments were rendered invalid by non-adherence to the mandatory procedure, notwithstanding the fact that the appointees held office during the litigation.
Nevertheless, mindful of the principle of institutional continuity, the High Court did not order immediate removal of the incumbents. Instead, it upheld their tenure up to the statutory six-month limit, allowing them to continue in place until those terms expire. This tempered relief was accompanied by firm directions: the state government must promptly submit a fresh list of eligible candidates to the governor for each position. Further, it instructed all appointments—temporary or permanent—to strictly comply with the 2018 UGC regulations, including minimum qualifications and selection norms.
The judgment resonated loudly within Kerala’s political and academic spheres. The Higher Education Minister, R. Bindu, welcomed the ruling, stating that the state government’s long-standing contention had at last been vindicated. She emphasized the need to depoliticize vice-chancellorships and ensure that merit, not partisan discretion, guides such appointments. Critics of the governor’s actions claimed the step was politically motivated, possibly favoring interests aligned with ideological affiliates.
Other commentators highlighted systemic dysfunction, noting that, worryingly, twelve of the thirteen state general universities were operating without regularly appointed vice-chancellors. The High Court remarked that this prolonged administrative void was a serious concern and posed a threat to the quality of higher education. Litigation over temporary and permanent vice-chancellor appointments, the Court observed, drained institutional energy and distracted from academic core objectives.
This judgment marks a critical reaffirmation of the federal balance enshrined in India’s educational governance framework: while governors may hold ceremonial and certain functional roles, those powers exist within boundaries explicitly crafted by legislation. The Court stressed that constitutional roles cannot be stretched to justify non-compliance with statutory procedure, even under the banner of educational urgency.
Beyond Kerala, the decision carries broader implications. It underscores that the authority of chancellors must respect state legislative intent, irrespective of the universities' contemporary academic associations. It sends a message to chancellors and governors across India: interventionist actions that bypass consultation are unlikely to be tolerated where state Acts prescribe process and procedure. Even where interim appointments are needed, they must adhere to the statutory sequence.
The ruling also makes an important practical contribution: it reaffirms the significance of UGC regulations in supplementing state laws, rather than displacing them. By insisting on compliance with national standards, the Court ensured that academic governance remains transparent, merit-based, and legally sound.
Ultimately, the Court's measured yet firm decision achieves a balance. It avoids short-term disruption while reinforcing the rule of law in university administration. By allowing the temporary incumbents to remain until their statutory maximum but requiring fresh recommendation lists and renewed compliance, it respects both institutional stability and statutory fidelity.
This landmark ruling thus fortifies democratic principles at the university level, preserving legislative intent and promoting academic autonomy free of arbitrary executive interference. It enhances federal harmony, protecting the state's prerogative in education—a domain inherently entrusted to elected representatives and governed by transparent, consultative processes. Echoing through Kerala and beyond, the judgment offers a sober reminder: statutory boundaries matter, even in the realm of higher education, and violations—no matter how well intentioned—will not escape judicial correction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.