Kerala VC Appointment: Governor Moves SC to Drop CM From Selection, Seeks UGC Nominee on Panel
Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar
The Kerala Governor has approached the Supreme Court seeking modification of its August 18 order on the process for appointing Vice Chancellors to two state universities.
In his application, the Governor urged the Court to exclude the Chief Minister from the selection process, include a nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in the search committee, and ensure that the Chancellor retains the discretion to choose from an alphabetical panel of shortlisted candidates.
The plea argues that the Court’s earlier reliance on State of West Bengal v. Sanat Kumar Ghosh was misplaced, since unlike the Calcutta University Act, the Kerala University statutes do not provide any role for the Chief Minister or the State Government in V-C appointments. It further cites Prof. Dr. Sreejith v. Dr. Rajasree (2023), where the Court held that UGC Regulations prevail over conflicting state laws in V-C appointments.
The Governor also sought deletion of the observation that the August 18 order was passed with the “consent of both parties,” contending that the Attorney General of India was not heard when the order was issued.
The application stresses that introducing the Chief Minister into the process or allowing a rank list of candidates would undermine both UGC Regulations and binding precedent, stripping the Chancellor of his statutory discretion.
The Supreme Court is likely to now consider the Governor’s plea for clarification and modification of its August 18 order.
Notably, on August 13, the Apex Court had said that it would itself constitute a Search Committee to oversee the process for appointing VCs to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, after the State and the Chancellor failed to reach consensus on the issue. Appearing for the Chancellor, Attorney General R. Venkatramani, assisted by Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar had maintained that the Governor had acted strictly “in terms of the judgment.” Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State had countered that attempts at cooperation had failed. “We tried, but it seems we have gone the wrong way,” he said.
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.
Case Title: The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala & Ors.
IA Filed on: September 2, 2025