Chennai, May 21 The Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that it has filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to shift a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of the state laws curtailing the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the high court to the apex court.
Appearing before a special summer vacation bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the state Higher Education Department, said the transfer plea was filed in light of related cases already pending before the Supreme Court.
Higher Education Secretary C. Samayamoorthy also submitted a memo to the High Court, claiming that the PIL was politically motivated.
The petition had been filed by Kutty, alias K. Venkatachalapathy, who is reportedly a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) functionary from Tirunelveli district.
While the petitioner raised 56 objections to the state legislation, his primary contention was that the laws contradicted Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. This regulation pertains to the minimum qualifications and appointment procedures for academic staff, including Vice-Chancellors. However, the state argued that the validity of Regulation 7.3 is itself under challenge in cases currently being heard by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the government maintained, it would be prudent to transfer the current PIL and have it tagged along with those pending matters in the apex court.
The Bench was also informed that a mention regarding the transfer plea had been made before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on May 19.
The CJI had reportedly directed the state’s counsel to inform the Madras High Court about the petition. Further, the Higher Education Secretary contended there was no immediate urgency requiring the High Court to take up the matter during the summer vacation. He requested the division bench to postpone the hearing until the Supreme Court decides on the transfer petition, citing the need for adequate time to prepare a detailed response to the 56 grounds raised in the PIL.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor