New Delhi, Feb 4 (.) The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a May 2025 order of the Madras High Court, which had stayed the operation of 10 amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly removing the Governor as Chancellor of certain State universities.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court’s interim stay.
The State had also filed a transfer petition seeking to move the matter from the Madras High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the State was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing before the High Court passed the stay order.
On this ground alone, the Bench set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Madras High Court for fresh consideration.
Directing a rehearing, the Bench ordered that the petitions be listed before a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court or any other appropriate Bench, with a direction that all parties be heard fully.
After remitting the matter, the Supreme Court initially expressed its inclination to restrain appointments under the amended laws until the High Court decided the case.
At this stage, the State informed the Court that it did not intend to make any appointments till the High Court’s decision.
This statement was formally recorded. Taking note of the “fair stand” of the State, the Bench requested the High Court to decide the matter within six weeks.
The Court also noted that the amendments had come into force following the declaration of “deemed consent” by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
The stayed amendments were challenged through a PIL, pursuant to which a vacation Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayan had stayed the laws in May 2025.
At the outset of the hearing, the CJI questioned Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the original PIL petitioner before the High Court, asking whether the writ petition had been allowed within five days without a hearing on merits.
Justice Bagchi also queried whether the State had been given sufficient opportunity to rebut the case.
Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocate P. Wilson submitted that the matter was moved before a vacation Bench despite the State not having filed its counter-affidavits.
He alleged that despite requests for a proper hearing, the order was passed abruptly. “Matter was moved during vacation courts… despite our arguments that we had not filed our counter-affidavits and requesting the court to hear us, the mic was switched off and an order was passed.
“Certain remarks were also made against me. The manner in which the proceedings were conducted was very unfair,” Wilson submitted.
Senior Advocate Naidu objected to the submission, stating that attributing motives to the Court was “completely unethical.”
Justice Bagchi then questioned the urgency shown by the vacation Bench, observing: “Why in a vacation Bench? This was not filed during vacation. It was already a pending matter.
“A vacation Bench testing the constitutionality of a university statute, what was the tearing hurry?”
In response, Naidu submitted that the State was likely to make appointments under the amended laws, necessitating urgent intervention.
The CJI, however, observed that even if any illegal appointments were made, the High Court could have addressed that issue subsequently. Senior Advocate Dr A.M. Singhvi, also appearing for the State, submitted that the laws had come into force in April 2025 and the matter was moved urgently only in May during court vacation.
He contended that the correct judicial procedure is to hear arguments first and then consider a stay, whereas in the present case, a stay was granted first.
Naidu countered this by stating that the High Court order was passed after a day-long hearing. The Supreme Court thereafter decided to remit the matter for a fresh hearing by the High Court.
While initially directing that the matter be heard by the Chief Justice’s Bench, the Court later modified the direction after noting that the incumbent Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice M.M. Srivastava, is due to retire in March.
Accordingly, it directed that the case be listed before any appropriate Bench. On a request made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, the Supreme Court clarified that its order should not be construed as a reflection on the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which passed the earlier stay order.
The Court also expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

. SNG .