In a significant development, the Supreme Court on July 30 signalled a clear victory for Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar in the ongoing standoff with the State Government over Vice-Chancellor appointments in two key universities. The Court urged both sides to “work in harmony,” but strongly underscored that students should not be made victims of political battles, implicitly censuring the State Government’s confrontational posture.
The case stemmed from the Governor’s appointment of Dr K Sivaprasad and Dr. Ciza Thomas as temporary VCs of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, respectively, in November 2024. These appointments were quashed by a single bench of the Kerala High Court in May 2025, citing lack of State Government recommendation. A division bench later upheld the verdict, prompting the Governor to move the Supreme Court.
Hearing the Special Leave Petition, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan emphasized that education must take precedence over political ego. The Court made it unequivocally clear that “students shouldn’t suffer” due to a power tussle and reminded both the Chancellor and the State that their constitutional duties must be exercised in coordination, not conflict.
While the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning the High Court verdict, it allowed the Governor, in his capacity as Chancellor, to continue with or appoint new temporary VCs until regular appointments are finalised. The bench clarified that the Chancellor can issue fresh notifications under existing enactments, a position that buttresses the Governor’s earlier actions and exposes the State Government’s obstructionist approach.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Governor, argued that the State Government had stalled the appointment process by challenging the constitution of the Search Committee in the High Court. The AG also underlined that UGC regulations empower the Chancellor to appoint temporary VCs without needing a state nod. In a telling exchange, Justice Pardiwala rebuffed State Government counsel saying, “There cannot be a stalemate. There has to be normalcy… Otherwise, students will be the sufferers.”
The Court further noted that Section 13(7) of the KTU Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act both stipulate a six-month maximum tenure for temporary VCs. The Governor had complied with this by appointing the officials on November 27, 2024, whose terms ended on May 27, 2025.
The State’s claim that even temporary appointments required its recommendation was effectively diluted when the bench acknowledged that UGC regulations could override conflicting provisions in state laws. The Court’s position offers the Governor flexibility to act in the interest of academic stability, without being hamstrung by politically motivated hurdles.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the Kerala Government, attempted to defend the High Court’s view but failed to provide clarity on the State’s next steps. The bench reminded him that “all that is important is appointing the right person” and urged both sides to “start the process of regular appointments at the earliest.”
The Supreme Court’s directive reaffirms the autonomy of the Chancellor’s office and deals a political and legal setback to the State Government, which has been injecting party politics into university governance. The Court’s message was firm: universities are not battlegrounds for political one-upmanship.
With the Court asking the Attorney General and State counsel to sort out the issue amicably, the ball is now in the State’s court to abandon its confrontational attitude and ensure academic institutions are insulated from political interference.
This verdict marks a moment of vindication for Governor Rajendra Arlekar, who has consistently argued that his decisions were in line with UGC norms and intended to safeguard institutional integrity. The SC’s observations elevate the Governor’s stand while calling out the State Government’s disruptive approach, making this a clear moral and procedural win for the Raj Bhavan.
Comments