After fight with Governor Ravi, TN govt takes Madras High Court to SC

CHENNAI: Undue haste on a plea that petitioner himself has not ascribed any urgency, showing unnecessary alacrity in hearing the case in just a day, and muting the mic while dictating the order for unknown reasons – the State government minced no words in the special leave petition challenging the interim stay that a vacation bench of the Madras High Court granted against the operation of the Amendments to the appointment of Vice Chancellor to State universities.

On May 21, a summer vacation bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay on the operation of a series of amendments adopted by the State Assembly to make the State government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for Vice-Chancellors of State-run universities.

The stay was granted on a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Kutty alias K Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, seeking to declare all the amendment Acts as null and void.

In the SLP, the State raised a series of objections, including what it termed were gross violation of principles of natural justice and settled judicial traditions, intemperate language, extraneous reasons and forum shopping.

"In matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of any legislation enacted by the legislature and the rules framed thereunder, the Courts should presume the constitutionality in favour of the impugned Acts and be extremely loath to pass an interim order. At the time of final adjudication, the court can strike down the statute if it is found to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Without granting the petitioners a reasonable and fair opportunity to state their case without inviting a counter affidavit or granting a short adjournment to effectively place their arguments, [the court has] passed the impugned order interfering with the functioning of the State universities in Tamil Nadu and its power to regulate under Entry 32 List II," the petition said, adding that in passing the order, the bench has, in effect, granted final relief at interim stage.

That the petitioner, an advocate belonging to a political party, did not feel any urgency from April 11 (when the Acts were notified) till May 9 indicated a textbook case of forum shopping, it alleged. “Despite this objection being raised, the division bench did not even call for an explanation from the Registry of the High Court or the petitioner but proceeded to hear the case with tearing hurry,” the plea said.

The bench, it said, showed “undue haste in hearing the writ petition challenging the nine statutes during the second and third week vacation court when no urgency has been pleaded in the writ petition”.

Though the government sought two weeks’ time to file a counter, which was denied. Later when it asked for a week, the bench refused to give time.

“The division bench showed undue haste to complete the hearing of the case on the interim applications on May 21 itself. The respondent no 1 commenced arguments around 4.10 pm and argued till 6 pm. When the Advocate General and senior counsel appearing for the State sought an adjournment, the bench compelled to argue on the same day and sat till 6.30 p.m., well beyond the court hours to hear and pass orders,” the petition said.

When no action was contemplated under the impugned laws before June, there was no need or cause for the bench to show such alacrity in hearing this writ petition on one day, without giving any proper opportunity to the State, argued the government.

“On May 21, even while dictating the order, the bench had for unknown reasons muted the court’s mic, and neither those in the court nor those on the virtual court platform could hear the order being passed,” it said.

The bench noted that the senior counsel representing the State, who was part of the petitions challenging the farm laws enacted by the Union government, had welcomed the stay granted by the court in that case, and said these Acts can also be stayed. “Such reasoning is neither legally sustainable nor logical and cannot form the basis of a judgement of a High Court,” argued the State in the SLP.

The order was rife with personal attacks on the senior counsel, “which ought not to be part of a judicial pronouncement”. Seeking an adjournment to file a counter and on the ground that a transfer petition has been filed before the Supreme Court and mentioned before the Chief Justice of India was termed as “obstruction”, which is unheard of in the judicial traditions of the country, it added.

Assailing the bench’s view that UGC Regulations, 2018, would prevail over the State legislation by virtue of the doctrine of repugnancy, the petition cited several Supreme Court verdicts that it said supported the State government’s stance on the matter.

It alleged fraud on the part of the petitioner, charging him with presenting fabricated gazette notifications before the High Court. The Supreme Court had, in a 1994 case, settled the law that fraud vitiates everything. “The same was notably lost sight by the High Court,” it said, and added that its submission in this regard was “not even recorded, far less dealt with”.

The government sought an ad interim ex-parte stay on the effect and operation of the High Court’s order as interim relief, and urged the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against the order.