The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its satisfaction over the resolution of the prolonged constitutional and statutory impasse between the Kerala Governor, acting as Chancellor, and the state government concerning the appointment of regular Vice-Chancellors to two major state universities, noting that the consensus marked a constructive conclusion to a dispute that had left key academic institutions administratively paralysed for months.
Attorney General R Venkataraman apprised the Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan that the Chancellor and the elected government had reached unanimity on appointments drawn from the panel recommended by a court-constituted Search and Selection Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Apex Court noted that the appointments were communicated to Justice Dhulia and formally notified ahead of the scheduled hearing.
Appearing for Governor Rajendra V Arlekar, the AG said the Chancellor had taken the initiative to engage directly with the Chief Minister, facilitating consensus. Accordingly, Dr Saji Gopinathan has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, while Dr Ciza Thomas has been appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology.
The controversy had arisen from sustained disagreement between the constitutional head of the State and the Council of Ministers on the interpretation and application of statutory provisions governing Vice-Chancellor appointments, resulting in the universities being run by interim arrangements well beyond reasonable limits.
Concerned that the absence of permanent academic leadership was prejudicial to students, faculty, non-teaching staff and affiliated institutions, the Supreme Court intervened by constituting a neutral search mechanism, following a model previously adopted in disputes emanating from West Bengal.
While acknowledging the resolution, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State of Kerala, pointed out that the notification of appointments had occurred while proceedings were pending.
The Bench, however, made it clear that the overriding concern was institutional stability and continuity of governance, and that the appointments had brought finality to an otherwise intractable dispute.
In its detailed order, the Apex Court observed that its timely and decisive intervention had played a critical role in protecting the rights of citizens and stakeholders under Article 21, read with the constitutional mandate of good governance in higher education. It noted that two universities dealing with advanced and emerging disciplines had remained rudderless solely due to the inability of the constitutional authorities to arrive at a common position.
When such conflicts impeded the functioning of public institutions, judicial intervention became necessary to preserve the rule of law and public interest, it observed.
The Apex Court placed on record its appreciation for Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s role as Chairperson of the Search and Selection Committee, noting that the appointments had ultimately been made from the empanelled list recommended through that process. It further recorded its appreciation for the Governor and the state government for acting in aid of the Court’s orders in the true spirit of Article 144 of the Constitution, thereby restoring regular governance to the universities.
The assistance rendered by the Attorney General and senior counsel for the state was also acknowledged as instrumental in bringing the matter to a close. At the same time, the top court of the country clarified that the broader questions of law arising from the dispute were expressly kept open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
Governor Arlekar had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Apex Court, challenging the Kerala High Court order that set aside the appointment of temporary Vice-Chancellors without the recommendation of the state government.
The High Court, relying on Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, had held that the Chancellor’s power to appoint a temporary Vice-Chancellor was circumscribed by the requirement of governmental recommendation and limited to an aggregate period of six months. The appointments of interim Vice-Chancellors made in November 2024 were quashed by a single-judge Bench. The order was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Despite the Supreme Court’s earlier exhortations to resolve the matter amicably and its clarification that interim arrangements could continue pending regular appointments, the dispute persisted, prompting the Court in August to constitute the Justice Dhulia-led committee and later to indicate that it would itself make the appointments if consensus continued to elude the parties. It was against this backdrop that the eventual agreement was reached, underscoring the Court’s observation that sustained dialogue between constitutional authorities is essential to avoid institutional deadlock and litigation-driven governance.
By formally recording the consensus and closing the proceedings insofar as the appointments were concerned, the Supreme Court underscored the primacy of functional autonomy and stability in public universities, while reiterating that unresolved constitutional and statutory questions would be examined independently, without being prejudiced by the present resolution.
The post VC appointments row: Supreme Court closes proceedings after Kerala Governor and State reach constitutional consensus appeared first on India Legal.