Kerala VC Appointment: Supreme Court to Wait for Justice Dhulia’s Report
SC bench deliberates on Kerala VC appointment dispute, awaiting Justice Dhulia’s report following AG’s intervention
Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani today mentioned before the Supreme Court an application filed by Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar seeking the removal of the Kerala Chief Minister from the Committee constituted for appointing regular Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology.
The AG cited a subsequent order in the West Bengal Governor matter, which restored the Governor’s authority as the appointing authority for Vice Chancellors, highlighting potential ambiguity in Kerala regarding who holds the final say in appointments. He requested that the application be considered before Justice (Retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia, head of the Committee, submits his recommendations.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the Kerala government, opposed the application.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, however, said it would wait for Justice Dhulia’s report before taking any decision. Justice Pardiwala remarked, “Should we not wait for the report of Justice Dhulia?”
AG Venkataramani stressed the need for clarity on the appointing authority, but the bench maintained that the process would be addressed once the Committee’s recommendations were received.
The matter will now proceed after Justice Dhulia submits his report, following which the Court will determine the modalities for VC appointments in Kerala.
Recently, the Kerala Governor had approached the Supreme Court seeking modification of its August 18 order on the process for appointing Vice Chancellors to two state universities.
On August 18, the Apex Court had appointed former judge of the Court, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, as the Chairperson of the Search and Selection Committee to appoint Vice Chancellors for two universities in Kerala; APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology. The Bench, stressing that “students should not suffer,” had 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.
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.
Hearing date: September 22, 2025