Context: Recent judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the appointment of vice chancellors (VC) in State universities in violation of the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) are significant in the context of higher education in a federal country such as India.

Supreme Court Judgements

Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v/s The State Of Gujarat Case (March 2022):

• In this case, the Supreme Court overruled the appointment of the incumbent VC of Sardar Patel University in Gujarat.

• The apex court quashed the appointment on the grounds that the “search committee” failed to set up a panel for the appointment of VC in accordance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018.

• The court also held that since the State law with respect to the appointment of VC had violated (repugnant to) the UGC regulations, the UGC regulations would prevail and the appointment of the VC under the State Law had become void ab initio (from the beginning).

Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (October 2022):

• In this case, the appointment of the VC of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University in Thiruvananthapuram was questioned.

• The appointment of the VC was challenged on the ground that the search committee had only recommended one name which again violated the UGC regulations. 

• The Supreme Court upheld the challenge and quashed the appointment of the VC on the ground that the provision relating to the search committee in the University Act was repugnant to the UGC regulations, and was hence declared void.

• This judgement by the apex court triggered an unprecedented development in the State with the State Governor of Kerala who is the ex-officio Chancellor of all state universities directing about 11 VCs of other state universities to resign on the ground that even their appointments had become void after this judgment by the Supreme Court. 

• None of the VCs has resigned and a case is now before the High Court of Kerala. 

• Meanwhile, in another case, the High Court of Kerala overruled the appointment of the VC of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies on the ground that the appointment violated UGC regulations.

• This development has further intensified the existing tussle between the incumbent Kerala State Government and the Governor.

The core issue in the appointment of VCs:

• Education, which was earlier a State subject, was shifted to the Concurrent list through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 and both the Union and the State can legislate on this subject.

• In both cases, the key issue highlighted by the Supreme Court is whether the appointment of VCs is made according to the UGC regulations or the provisions of the State University Act.

• A VC is appointed by the Chancellor as per the provisions of the respective University Act. However, the apex court took into account Article 254 of the Constitution to decide whether the provisions of the State law are repugnant to the provisions of the Union law which make the State law void.

• In both recent cases, the Supreme Court had observed that the search committee recommended only one name for the appointment of VC which violates the UGC regulations as the regulations mandated the recommendation of three to five names. Hence the SC has declared the State law is void. 

Article 254 of the Constitution

• Article 254 deals with inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. It talks about the doctrine of repugnancy. 

• Article 254(1): If any legislation enacted by the state legislature is repugnant to the legislation enacted by the Parliament, then the state legislation will be declared void, and the legislation enacted by the Parliament will prevail.

• Article 254(2): In case of repugnant legislation passed by the state against the Parliament, the state can enforce the legislation if they receive assent from the President.

• Article 254 of the Indian Constitution successfully establishes the Doctrine of Repugnancy in India.

• Repugnancy is when two pieces of legislation have a conflict between them and when applied to the same facts produce different outcomes or results. 

Criticism on the judgement of the Supreme Court

• Experts point out that the provisions of Article 254 apply only to State law and a substantive law made by Parliament and it excludes the rules or regulations framed by subordinate authorities such as the UGC.

• Therefore the repugnancy can only occur between the provisions of the University Acts and the UGC Act, and not any regulations of the UGC.

• Rules and regulations framed and formulated by subordinate authorities such as UGC are laid before the Parliament but they do not go through a similar process as a law because they usually do not require President’s assent or approval. 

• These rules and regulations when compared to an Act or a Law have an inferior status and hence cannot be equated with Acts or Laws.

• The Constitution of India does not define the term “Law” in general terms and the definition of “Law” mentioned under Article 13(2) is applicable only to that Article. Therefore, the term “Law” does not include the rules, regulations, etc. for the purpose of Article 254.

• Furthermore, the rules and regulations devised by subordinate authorities of the Union overriding a Law formulated by a State legislature would amount to the violation of principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution as they result in the negation of the concurrent legislative power granted to the State by the Constitution. 

• Experts also point out that the UGC regulations on the appointment of VCs are outside the purview of the main provisions of the UGC Act as none of its provisions refers to the appointment of VCs.

Key Suggestion

• Article 254 must be analysed in depth before such judgements are made in accordance with the provisions of the Article.

• Further, such issues which particularly affect the rights of States and the federal principles must be accorded the highest priority and serious thought must be given to it.

• The Supreme Court in S. Satyapal Reddy v/s Govt. of A.P. in 1994 had held that “the court has to make every attempt to reconcile the provisions of the apparently conflicting laws and the court would endeavour to give harmonious construction.The proper test would be whether effect can be given to the provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can stand together”. 

• This way, there would be no need to strike down a State law based on repugnancy with the Union Law.

Road Ahead

• The rules and regulations formulated by the subordinate authorities of the Union such as the UGC, overpowering the Act or Laws devised by the elected State Governments will have serious consequences on the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution and therefore such judgments that have accorded higher status to such regulations must be re-examined urgently.