SC Sets Aside Madras HC Stay Of TN University Law Amendments, Directs Fresh Hearing By HC
The top court said the matters be listed before a bench presided over by the chief justice of Madras HC or any other appropriate bench.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : February 4, 2026 at 6:42 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said what the tearing hurry for the vacation bench of the high court to stay the law, while setting aside the May 2025, Madras High Court order, which had put on hold the operation of the 10 amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly to remove the governor as the chancellor of certain state universities.
The matter came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi. Senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing the state government, contended that the laws came into effect in April 2025, and in May 2025, the matter was moved urgently during the vacation.
He added that the procedure followed is first stay, then arguments, and the actual procedure should be first arguments then stay. However, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for the petitioner in the high court) argued that the order was passed after a day-long hearing.
The bench noted these are statutory rules having a presumption of constitutionality. Senior advocate P Wilson, also representing the Tamil Nadu government, said the matter was moved during the vacation, and the person comes in the vacation court, bypasses the Madurai court, and files this writ petition here and moves an urgency slip. Wilson added that it was submitted before the high court judge that the state has not filed a counter affidavit, but the judge switched off the mike and passed an interim order.
The bench asked, "Can a vacation court question the constitutionality of some universities' statutes? What is the tearing hurry?” The CJI said that assuming some illegal appointments are made, it does not prevent the high court from setting aside them. “If the high court finds, yes, there is something the state did in a hurry, made some illegal appointments. The high court can always set aside”, observed the bench.
After hearing submissions, the bench said it will set aside this high court order. The bench observed that the state should have been given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing the order and decided to remit the matter to the High Court of Madras for a fresh hearing.
The apex court said 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.
The bench also expressed its inclination to direct that no appointments should be made until the decision of the high court. At this juncture, the state government counsel submitted that they do not intend to make any appointments till the high court's decision. The apex court asked the high court to decide the matter within six weeks.
The apex court was hearing the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu challenging the high court's stay order. The state had also filed a transfer petition seeking to transfer the matter from the high court.
Read More
