SC Appoints Retd. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as Chairperson of Search Committee for Kerala Universities Amid VC Appointment Row

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State of Kerala, while Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar represented the Governor. The Attorney General, who was also to assist, was occupied in another court.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala sought to know whether both sides had furnished their lists of names for the committee. Gupta submitted a list of four members from the State, while Sreekumar informed that the Governor had proposed eight names each for both universities.

The Bench, stressing that “students should not suffer,” decided to end the deadlock by appointing Justice Dhulia as Chairperson. The Court clarified that the committee will have five members, comprising two nominees each from the lists provided by the Chancellor and the State, apart from the Chairperson. Justice Dhulia will have discretion to either constitute a common committee or separate committees for the two universities.

The Committee has been tasked with preparing a panel of at least three names for each university. The Chairperson has also been requested to constitute the committee within two weeks.

The Kerala Education Department has been directed to issue an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor, with a four-week application window, making specific reference to the Supreme Court’s order. All applications, once scrutinised, are to be placed before the Chairperson.

The Court further ordered that Justice Dhulia shall be paid an honorarium of Rs. 3 lakh for each sitting.

Importantly, the Bench noted that the larger constitutional issue concerning the Chancellor’s powers will remain pending, to be decided at a later stage, even as the appointment process through the Search and Selection Committee proceeds.

The Court had pressed both sides on the delay in initiating the regular VC appointment process. When Gupta had explained that disputes had arisen over who held the authority to constitute the Search Committee under Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Technological University Act, Justice Pardiwala asked pointedly: “Why is it taking time?” Gupta had submitted that the State began the process in July 2024, but the Governor separately constituted a different committee, leading to the present clash. He insisted that the power lay with the State under UGC Regulations. The Attorney General rejected the claim, asserting, “As per UGC, the Chancellor.”

Faced with the deadlock, the Bench had proposed a solution: both the State and the Chancellor should submit four names each, with one additional nomination from the UGC. The Court itself would then constitute the Search Committee. “The Chancellor and State Government should sit for a cup of coffee,” Justice Pardiwala remarked, urging cooperation.

The Attorney General had flagged governance lapses at the universities, noting that auditing had not been conducted for over five years. Justice Pardiwala had however, cautioned against politicising the matter: “In the larger interest, we may ignore what was pointed out by Gupta. We will constitute a Search Committee and it will give its opinion. You, in consultation with the State, sit and decide one with both universities.”

On the issue of temporary VCs, Gupta had argued that the Governor’s recent appointments were illegal, as Section 13(7) permitted the Chancellor to appoint only from a panel recommended by the State. Justice Pardiwala had asked whether the State was questioning the fitness of the incumbent appointees. Gupta clarified that the objection was procedural, not personal. The Bench had urged restraint: “Our respect to your client, don’t precipitate on temporary VC issue. That does not mean the position of law changes.”

The Kerala Governor’s petition challenges a July 14, 2025 judgment of the Kerala High Court that upheld the State’s reliance on Section 13(7) to justify temporary VC appointments. The Governor contends that such extensions violate UGC Regulations, which do not recognise the concept of temporary Vice-Chancellors and require strict adherence to academic eligibility norms.

On July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court had allowed the Governor to issue fresh temporary appointments within the six-month statutory limit but emphasised that both the Governor and the State must avoid politicising the matter, keep students’ interests at the forefront, and cooperate until regular appointments are finalised.