BREAKING| Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court's Stay Of Tamil Nadu University Law Amendments, Directs Fresh Hearing

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Madras High Court's order passed in May 2025 which stayed the operation of the 10 amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to remove the Governor as the Chancellor of certain State Universities.

The Court asked why a vacation bench of the Court acted in a "tearing hurry" to stay the laws.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court's stay order. The State also filed a transfer petition seeking to transfer the matter from the High Court.

The bench observed that the State ought to have been given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing the order. On this ground alone, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court of Madras for fresh hearing. The bench directed that the matters be listed before a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court or any other appropriate bench and that the parties be heard.

After remitting the matter, the bench was inclined to direct that no appointments should be made until the High Court's decision. At this juncture, the State submitted that they do not intend to make any appointments till the High Court's decision. This statement was recorded. In the light of the "fair stand taken by the State," the bench requested the High Court to decide the matter within six weeks.

It may be noted that these bills came into force following the 'deemed consent' declared by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. In May, a vacation bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan stayed the amendments in a PIL.

As soon as the matter was taken, CJI asked Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for the petitioner in the High Court), "Mr Naidu is it correct that after 5 days, the writ petition was allowed without hearing on merits?"

Justice Bagchi also asked if sufficient opportunity was given to the State to rebut the case.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, for the State, submitted that the matter was moved before a vacation bench. "Matter was moved during the vacation courts...the person waits for the notification, bypasses Madurai HC....despite our arguments that we have not filed our counter-affidavits and please hear us , the ld Judge switched off the mic and passed an order and also made certain remarks against me also. Something unheard of, the way the proceedings were conducted, very unfair." Naidu interjected to submit that "attributing motives to the Court was completely unethical."

Justice Bagchi then asked why the matter was taken up by the vacation bench. "Why in a vacation bench? This was not filed during vacation, it was already a pending matter. Vacation bench testing the constitutionality of some university statute! What is the tearing hurry for the court to pass the order?"

Naidu submitted that the State was moving to make appointments, and hence the matter was moved urgently. CJI replied that if any illegal appointments were made, the High Court could have interfered with that. 

Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, for the State, submitted that the laws came into effect in April 2025 and in May 2025, the matter was moved urgently during the vacation. "The procedure followed is first stay, then arguments. The actual procedure should be first arguments then stay." Naidu countered by saying that the order was passed after a day-long hearing.

The bench then decided to send the matter back to the High Court for fresh hearing. Although at first the bench directed that the matter be heard by the Chief Justice's bench, after realising that the incumbent CJ MM Srivastava will retire in March, the bench directed that the matter be posted before any appropriate bench.

Considering a request made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, the bench also recorded that the order should not be seen as a reflection on the division bench which passed the order. The bench also clarified in its order that it has no expressed anything on the merits of the matter.

Case : THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs K VENKATACHALAPTHY KUTTY. SLP(C) No. 17220/2025, T.P.(C) No. 1511/2025