Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar has openly challenged the Supreme Court’s intervention in the appointment of vice-chancellors in state universities, asserting that courts have no constitutional authority to directly appoint heads of academic institutions. His remarks have added a fresh dimension to the ongoing institutional standoff involving Raj Bhavan, the state government, and the judiciary.
Speaking at a public function, the Governor argued that the power to appoint vice-chancellors is vested with the Chancellor, a role constitutionally assigned to the Governor under university statutes and UGC regulations. He maintained that while courts may interpret laws and issue directions, they cannot assume executive functions such as selecting or appointing vice-chancellors, as this would amount to overreach into domains reserved for constitutional authorities.
Arlekar expressed concern over what he described as an expanding trend of judicial intervention in administrative and academic matters. Referring indirectly to recent Supreme Court orders on vice-chancellor appointments in Kerala, he questioned whether such actions could weaken the principle of separation of powers. According to him, universities are autonomous bodies governed by specific statutes, and any deviation from established appointment procedures risks undermining institutional independence.
The Governor further stated that if constitutional authorities fail in their duties, there are remedies available within the constitutional framework, but direct judicial appointments set a precedent that could blur institutional boundaries. He drew parallels with other constitutional offices, suggesting that courts stepping into appointment roles could create long-term governance complications.
The remarks come against the backdrop of a prolonged deadlock between the Kerala government and Raj Bhavan over vice-chancellor appointments in several universities. The Supreme Court had stepped in after disagreements between the Governor and the state government led to delays, directing a court-appointed committee to recommend names to ensure that universities are not left without leadership.
Political reactions to the Governor’s statement have been swift, with ruling front leaders accusing Raj Bhavan of defying judicial authority and delaying appointments under the guise of constitutional interpretation. They argue that the Supreme Court’s intervention became necessary precisely because statutory responsibilities were not being discharged in a timely manner.
Legal experts note that the controversy highlights a larger national debate on the role of governors as chancellors of universities, the limits of judicial oversight, and the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. As the issue continues to unfold, it is expected to have wider implications for higher education governance not only in Kerala but across several states facing similar disputes.
With constitutional positions hardening on all sides, the clash over vice-chancellor appointments is emerging as a critical test case for defining institutional boundaries within India’s federal and democratic framework.