The Aryavarth Express
Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala): Amid an ongoing deadlock over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in Kerala universities, Governor Rajendra Arlekar on Sunday criticised the Supreme Court’s directive to the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Committee to recommend names for the Vice-Chancellor posts of the University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
In an order dated December 11, the apex court observed that the stalemate continued despite its earlier interventions. It directed the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Committee to submit, in sealed covers, a list of candidates in order of preference for each university, along with a report on the Chief Minister’s letter and the Vice-Chancellor’s response.
Governor Arlekar alleged that the Supreme Court had overlooked its own principles laid down in the Kannur University Vice-Chancellor judgment. He argued that the ruling clearly recognised the authority of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and upheld the Chancellor’s exclusive power to appoint Vice-Chancellors.
“University matters in Kerala are constantly being debated. Everyone is aware of the Kannur judgment, which respects the UGC’s role and the Chancellor’s authority to select Vice-Chancellors. But later, the same provisions are being ignored. The court itself is appointing search committees, even though this responsibility lies with the Chancellor,” the Governor said.
He further asserted that both the Kerala University Acts and UGC regulations mandate that search committees be constituted by the Chancellor, not by the courts. “Even when the law and UGC guidelines say the Chancellor should appoint the search committee, the court says it will do so. This approach is not correct. Courts taking over the roles of other institutions is not healthy,” he added.
The Supreme Court, in its Kannur University judgment, had held that the Chancellor is the competent authority to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor and that no other authority, including the Pro-Chancellor, can interfere in the functioning of a statutory authority. The court had also ruled that any decision taken at the behest of a person without statutory authority would be illegal.
However, the apex court also underlined that the decision-making process in such appointments remains subject to judicial review, as noted in its 2023 judgment.
