New Delhi, June 3 (Reporter) The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court’s interim stay on the state's recent amendments that curtailed the Governor’s powers in appointing Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of state universities. The Madras High Court, through a Division Bench led by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, had granted the stay, ruling that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 particularly Regulation 7.3 prevail over state legislation under the constitutional principle of repugnancy. In its petition to the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government has argued that the interim stay granted by the High Court effectively amounts to granting final relief, which is legally unsustainable. The state further contended that the High Court failed to take into account its request to transfer the case to the Supreme Court, which had already been communicated earlier. The High Court’s stay blocks the operation of amendments made to the Tamil Nadu Universities Laws, which aimed to transfer the power of appointing Vice-Chancellors from the Governor (as Chancellor) to the state government. The amendments were passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 2022 and 2023, and had become a key point of constitutional friction between the Governor and the elected state government. While the UGC Regulations, 2018 were partially adopted by the Tamil Nadu government, they had expressly excluded Regulation 7.3, which stipulates the composition of the search committee and the procedure for appointing VCs. Despite this, the High Court held that the exclusion of Regulation 7.3 was impermissible, asserting that central law (UGC Regulations) overrides state law when the two are in conflict, as per Article 254 of the Constitution. The Tamil Nadu government, however, maintains that education is a subject in the Concurrent List, and that states have legislative competence to enact laws governing universities, particularly when the UGC Act does not expressly override the field. It further accused the High Court of bypassing constitutional norms, arguing that interim relief should not exceed the contours of final adjudication. Citing two key Supreme Court judgments, the High Court had, on May 22 and 23, 2025, quashed appointments of Vice-Chancellors in separate instances for violating Regulation 7.3, and warned of the dangers of “lack of transparency or malpractice” in appointments if statutory procedures were not followed. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the transfer petition, signalling that the matter will now be judicially examined at the highest level, potentially setting a precedent on the limits of state autonomy versus central regulations in the field of higher education...////...