The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought a report from the Tamil Nadu government on why nearly 14 state universities have remained without regular Vice-Chancellors (VCs) for several years and what is being done to fill the vacancies.
Justice B Pugalendhi sought the explanation while hearing a petition challenging the continuation of S Muthaiah as Registrar-in-Charge of Madurai Kamaraj University (MKU). The court was told that several universities are currently being administered by Registrars-in-Charge, with important decisions being taken through Convenor Committees.
The university’s counsel said Muthaiah’s appointment was temporary, that he possessed the required qualifications and that a recruitment process for a regular Registrar had already begun. The court, however, broadened its concern to the wider leadership vacuum and directed the Principal Secretary of the Higher Education Department to explain the reasons for the VC vacancies and the steps taken to fill them.
The matter will be heard again after three weeks. The latest intervention comes amid a long-running dispute between the state government and the Governor’s office over who should appoint VCs and whether UGC representation is mandatory in search committees.
In July, Higher Education Minister P Viswanathan said the government had sought the Governor’s approval for five-member search committees that would include a UGC nominee, signalling an attempt to break the deadlock.
A Leadership Vacuum
The immediate case before the court concerned A Velanganni Joseph’s challenge to S Muthaiah’s continuation as Registrar-in-Charge of MKU. The petitioner questioned the authority under which Muthaiah was holding the post and alleged that he lacked the required qualification.
The university disputed this, telling the court that Muthaiah was functioning only temporarily, had the necessary qualifications and had been appointed by a competent authority. It also said that a notification for appointing a regular Registrar was issued on June 2, with July 8 as the deadline for applications, and that the selection process was underway.
During the hearing, however, lawyers brought the court’s attention to the larger problem: almost 14 universities had no regular VCs and were instead relying on Registrars-in-Charge and Convenor Committees.
Justice Pugalendhi subsequently directed the Additional Advocate General to obtain instructions from the Principal Secretary of the Higher Education Department on why these posts remained vacant and what measures were being taken.
The court was not inclined to entertain the original challenge against Muthaiah, but treated the broader vacancy issue as serious enough to warrant a government report.
The vacancies matter because the VC is responsible for providing academic and administrative leadership, while prolonged dependence on temporary arrangements can make institutions more cautious about major decisions involving recruitment, research, finance and academic programmes.
Earlier reporting found that students and faculty had experienced delays in certificates, appointments and institutional decisions at universities operating without permanent leadership.
Why The Vacancies Persist
The present crisis is closely tied to a legal and political dispute over the appointment process. Tamil Nadu amended several university laws to replace the Governor/Chancellor’s role in appointing VCs with that of the state government.
The Governor’s office challenged this approach, while the state argued that higher education falls substantially within the state’s constitutional domain. A central point of disagreement has also been the composition of VC search committees.
The Governor’s office has maintained that the UGC’s 2018 regulations require a nominee of the UGC Chairman on the search committee and has argued that appointments made through committees that do not comply with those regulations could be legally vulnerable.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court set aside an interim Madras High Court order that had stayed the amended Tamil Nadu laws, holding that the state had not been given an adequate opportunity to be heard, and sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
The dispute, however, did not immediately translate into appointments. In July, Higher Education Minister P Viswanathan said the state had sought the Governor’s approval to constitute five-member search-and-selection committees, including a UGC nominee, in what was presented as an effort to resolve the prolonged stalemate. But the proposal has itself drawn opposition.
DMK MP P Wilson argued that including a UGC nominee would dilute the state’s authority over higher education, saying it would amount to “surrendering Tamil Nadu’s rights to Union govt”. PMK president Anbumani Ramadoss similarly criticised the proposed five-member committees, arguing that the inclusion of a UGC representative would undermine the state’s autonomy.
With different stakeholders holding sharply contrasting positions, universities have continued to operate amid uncertainty. The latest High Court order therefore shifts attention from the political disagreement itself to its administrative consequences, asking the government to account for why the vacancies have persisted.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Universities should not become collateral damage in prolonged institutional disagreements. Whether the final solution involves the state government, the Governor, the UGC or a mutually agreed search mechanism, students, teachers and researchers should not have to bear the consequences of an unresolved dispute over authority.
The concerns raised by the Governor’s office about academic standards and compliance with UGC regulations deserve to be addressed through a transparent legal process, while the state’s concerns about federalism and its role in higher education also merit meaningful consideration.
Also read: Jharkhand Factory Blast: 3 Engineers Killed As Turbine Explosion Sparks Massive Fire
