The Supreme Court warned Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and the ruling DMK to sort out their long-running squabble over the appointment of vice-chancellors for state-run universities.
A bench led by Justice SB Pardiwala told both sides – who have bickered, for years now, over the Governor’s refusal to clear a clutch of bills designed to limit his powers to appoint vice-chancellors – that, “By next date (of hearing) if this is resolved… well and good. Otherwise, we will resolve it.”
The row stems from the Governor’s insistence on appointing the vice-chancellors in his capacity as the honorary chancellor of universities run by the Tamil Nadu government. The two sides also disagree over the Governor’s ability to appoint personnel to the state’s Public Service Commission.
The state moved the court last year after Mr Ravi set up a committee to name vice-chancellors for the University of Madras, Bharathiar University, and the Tamil Nadu Teachers Training University.
The state called the move “illegal” and reconstituted the committee, removing members from the University Grants Commission, a statutory body under the Union Education Ministry.
Mr Ravi later withdrew the search committees he had set up.
Earlier the DMK moved the court seeking directions to the Governor to clear several bills, including two passed by the preceding All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led government.
The ruling party accused the Bharatiya Janata Party-appointed Mr Ravi of deliberately delaying the bills and scuttling the state’s development by “undermining the elected administration”.
In an earlier hearing, in November 2023, the court took a dim view of the allegations, and asked the Governor, “These bills (have been) pending since 2020. What were you doing for three years?”
The court – which was told Mr Ravi had returned 10 bills and was then hearing similar pleas by the Punjab and Kerala, ruled by parties opposed to the BJP – also raised a point of law, asking, “Can a Governor withhold assent on a bill without sending it back to the Assembly?”
The court also noted the Governor of any state – under Article 200 of the Constitution – had only three options – clear bills presented to him, withhold assent, or send the bills to the President.
Appearing then for Mr Ravi, Solicitor General Tushar Ravi argued the Governor, of any state, “is not a mere technical supervisor” and that s/he had an important role to play in passing bills.
