2281 P
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. XXX OF 2025
(Under Article 131 & 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
IN THE MATTER OF
University Grants Commission (Petitioner)
Represented by:
Counsel for the Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent)
Represented by:
Counsel for the Respondent
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Written and filed by the counsel of petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................................5
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION.....................................................................................................6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................................7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..............................................................................................................8
PRAYER.............................................................................................................................................15
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2
Cases
Annamalai University v. Secretary, Information & Tourism Department (2009) 4 SCC 590.. .9
Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 514................................................9
Dr. Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S 2023 SCC OnLine SC 160...............................................9
Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455..................................................................13
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179...............................................10
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489.......14
S.P. Kapoor v. State of H.P. (1981) 4 SCC 716........................................................................13
Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (2024) 3 SCC 799..................................................14
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104....................9
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1956, § 26.............8
Statutes
Constitution of India, sch. VII, list I, entry 66...........................................................................8
India Const. art. 14..................................................................................................................13
India Const. art. 254................................................................................................................11
India Const. sch. VII, list III, entry 25.......................................................................................9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
3
UGC issued Regulations, 2018 under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, prescribing
procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellors.
Tamil Nadu amended its university laws to allow the State Government to appoint Vice-
Chancellors, bypassing UGC norms.
UGC contends this violates national standards and is repugnant to central law.
A petition challenges the constitutional validity of the State amendment.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4
This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petition under Article 131 as
well as Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Under Article 131, this Hon'ble Court has original jurisdiction to hear disputes between the
Government of India and one or more States. The Petitioner, the University Grants
Commission, is a statutory body established by Parliament under the UGC Act, 1956, and
functions as an extension of the Union of India in matters pertaining to coordination and
determination of standards in higher education. The impugned amendment by the Respondent
State of Tamil Nadu constitutes a dispute between the Union of India (through its statutory
authority) and the State Government, thus squarely falling within the scope of Article 131.
Concurrently, under Article 32, this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to enforce fundamental
rights. The Petitioner contends that the impugned amendment violates the fundamental
principles of the Constitution and infringes upon the statutory rights and duties of the
Petitioner
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
5
I. WHETHER THE UGC REGULATIONS, 2018, ARE BINDING IN NATURE
AND HAVE AN OVERRIDING EFFECT ON THE IMPUGNED STATE
LEGISLATION?
II. WHETHER THE STATE AMENDMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID IN
LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLES 14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
6
I. WHETHER THE UGC REGULATIONS, 2018, ARE BINDING IN NATURE
AND HAVE AN OVERRIDING EFFECT ON THE IMPUGNED STATE
LEGISLATION?
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2018, are
binding and have overriding effect by virtue of being subordinate legislation under the
UGC Act, 1956, which traces its authority to Entry 66 of List I. Any conflicting State
legislation is rendered inoperative due to repugnancy under Article 254 of the
Constitution, as upheld in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi.
III. WHETHER THE STATE AMENDMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID IN
LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLES 14
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the State Amendment is
constitutionally invalid as it violates Article 14 by introducing arbitrariness and
irrationality in the appointment process, undermining the transparency and expert-
driven mandate of the UGC Regulations, thereby compromising academic autonomy
and national educational standards.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
7
ISSUE I : WHETHER THE UGC REGULATIONS, 2018, ARE BINDING IN NATURE
AND HAVE AN OVERRIDING EFFECT ON THE IMPUGNED STATE
LEGISLATION?
A. The Supremacy of Parliament under Entry 66, List I
1. The plaintiff most humbly and respectfully submitted before this hon’ble court that
The UGC's primary authority is not merely statutory but is rooted in the Constitution
of India. Entry 66 of List I (Union List) 1 of the Seventh Schedule explicitly empowers
the Union Parliament to make laws for the "Co-ordination and determination of
standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical
institutions."
2. Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 2 empowers the Commission to “make regulations,
consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, to carry out the purposes of
this Act.”
3. These Regulations, once notified, are not mere policy circulars. They acquire a full
statutory character. Their language is not suggestive; it is imperative and
mandatory, employing commands such as “shall be appointed” and “must be a
distinguished academician.” This choice of wording, Your Honour, leaves no room for
discretion and reflects the unambiguous legislative intent to establish a uniform,
transparent, and merit-based system for this most critical of academic appointments.
4. This binding nature is not a novel proposition. This Hon’ble Court has been consistent
on this point. In Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra (2012)3, the Court
categorically observed that “the regulations framed by the UGC have a binding effect
on all universities.” This principle was recently reaffirmed in Dr. Sreejith P.S. v. Dr.
Rajasree M.S. (2023)4, where the Court did not hesitate to strike down the
appointment of a Vice-Chancellor that was made in contravention of the mandatory
UGC Regulations.
5. Education is the bedrock of the nation's progress. It is therefore imperative
that uniform standards are maintained across India. Allowing individual States to
1
Constitution of India, sch. VII, list I, entry 66.
2
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1956
3
Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 514
4
Dr. Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S 2023 SCC OnLine SC 160
8
deviate at will would inevitably dilute these standards and jeopardize the quality and
integrity of our entire higher education system.
6. This principle was powerfully articulated in Annamalai University v. Secretary,
Information & Tourism Department (2009)5, where this Hon’ble Court held that on
the specific issue of determining and maintaining educational standards, the UGC Act
and its Regulations must prevail over any inconsistent State law.
7. The Tamil Nadu amendment is precisely the kind of inconsistent State action that this
line of jurisprudence condemns. It is a deviation that threatens the very uniformity and
high standards the UGC is constitutionally mandated to uphold.
8. The UGC Act, 1956, was enacted by Parliament precisely under this supreme
constitutional entry and Its Preamble also clarifies its purpose: to provide for the "co-
ordination and determination of standards in Universities."
9. In contrast, the State of Tamil Nadu derives its power from Entry 25 of List III
(Concurrent List)6, which deals with "Education." It is a settled constitutional
principle, as established in numerous judgments decided by this hon’ble court
including State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 7,
that Entry 25 of the Concurrent List is subject to the overriding power of Entry 66 of
the Union List.
10. Therefore, any State law pertaining to higher education must yield to a Union law if it
has the effect of impeding the coordination and determination of standards which is
the exclusive domain of the Union. the Tamil Nadu Amendment constitutes a direct
encroachment upon the Union’s exclusive domain under Entry 66, List I of the
Seventh Schedule.
11. State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute has
authoritatively interpreted Entry 66. It has been held that the expression
“coordination” under Entry 66:
“…means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted
action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It… includes
action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the
occurrence of such disparities.”
5
Annamalai University v. Secretary, Information & Tourism Department (2009) 4 SCC 590
6
India Const. sch. VII, list III, entry 25.
7
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104
9
12. The Petitioner submits that the power under Entry 66 is absolute and unconditional,
and it must be given full effect in all matters concerning the co-ordination and
determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
13. the UGC Regulations, 2018, regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, represent
the quintessential exercise of this Union power. These Regulations are designed to
prevent disparities in leadership quality, ensure uniform standards of academic
excellence, and safeguard autonomous governance across universities in India.
14. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that, as held in Adhiyaman, any
such State law attempting to override or bypass the Union’s exclusive legislative
framework is void and inoperative.
15. with regard to the claim that these UGC Regulations are merely "directory
guidelines." But this position is fundamentally erroneous and has been directly and
conclusively rebutted by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi
versus State of Gujarat, delivered in 20228.
16. The UGC Regulations are not born in a vacuum. They are meticulously framed under
the specific, delegated authority of Sections 26(1)(e) and (g) of the parent UGC Act of
1956. Which is a power delegated by Parliament itself. And as the Hon'ble Court
in Gambhirdan held in terms so clear that they admit of no misunderstanding, it was
held in that "UGC Regulations become part of the [parent] Act."
17. Furthermore, these regulations are laid before both Houses of Parliament, a process
that underscores their legislative character and validity. They are not mere advisories
but carry the full force of law.
B. Repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution
1. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that the core constitutional
mechanism resolving the present dispute is the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254
of the Constitution of India9.
2. It is conceded that the broader subject of “education” falls under the Concurrent List
(Entry 25, List III). However, Article 254(1) clearly provides that where there exists any
inconsistency or conflict between a State law and a law made by Parliament on the same
subject, the Central law shall prevail.
8
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179
9
India Const. art. 254.
10
3. The conflict in the present case is direct and irreconcilable. The UGC Regulations,
2018, being part of the Central legislation under the UGC Act, mandate a specific,
transparent process for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, which includes the
constitution of a Search-cum-Selection Committee with nominees from the UGC,
culminating in an appointment by the Chancellor.
4. Whereas the Tamil Nadu amendment is in direct opposition to this scheme, as it creates
a State-dominated committee and vests the appointment power solely in the State
Government, thereby bypassing the mechanism mandated under the UGC Regulations.
5. The Petitioner most humbly submits that such a situation squarely constitutes a textbook
case of repugnancy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of
Gujarat has unequivocally held that:
“In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation,
Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy.
Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC
Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions.”
6. Therefore, impugned amendment by the State of Tamil Nadu creates precisely such a
repugnant situation, directly obstructing the national standards and coordinated system
envisaged by Parliament under Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule.
7. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that, by the explicit operation of
Article 254, the Central legislation the UGC Act, 1956, and the mandatory UGC
Regulations, 2018 must prevail, thereby rendering the inconsistent portions of the Tamil
Nadu amendment void and inoperative.
ISSUE II : WHETHER THE STATE AMENDMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
VALID IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLES 14?
1. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that the Respondent State’s
contention that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is a mere “administrative matter” is
a myopic and untenable view which fails to appreciate the critical role played by a Vice-
Chancellor in a university.
2. The Vice-Chancellor is the academic and executive head of a university, and their
qualifications, integrity, and independence are of paramount importance to maintain,
11
safeguard, and elevate the standards of education, research, and administration within the
institution.
3. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that a procedure whereby the State
Government, through a committee under its control, effectively appoints the Vice-
Chancellor raises serious concerns of politicization and poses a direct threat to academic
autonomy. Such a process undermines the integrity of higher education institutions and
compromises their standards.
4. the UGC Regulations, 2018, are deliberately designed to insulate this critical appointment
from extraneous influences. They mandate an expert-driven, transparent, and merit-based
process, including the participation of UGC nominees in the Search-cum-Selection
Committee, with the Chancellor making the final appointment.
A. The State’s Action is Arbitrary and Violates Article 14 of the Constitution
1. the Constitution mandates that all State action must conform to the principle of non-
arbitrariness under Article 1410. The Supreme Court has consistently held that:
“…any decision taken by the State must be reasoned, and not arbitrary.”
2. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that the UGC-prescribed process
for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors is reasoned and deliberate. It ensures
appointments are made based on academic expertise and merit, insulated from
political interference, through a Search-cum-Selection Committee that includes
representatives from the national regulatory body (UGC nominees).
3. Whereas the Tamil Nadu Amendment, by removing this expert-led process and
centralizing appointment powers within the State Government, provides no
compelling rationale for how it improves standards in higher education. On the
contrary, it introduces risks of arbitrariness, favoritism, and patronage, precisely what
the UGC framework was designed to prevent.
4. the principle laid down in Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 11 and S.P. Kapoor v. State of
Punjab12 is directly applicable, namely:
“…when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would be presumed.”
5. that the Tamil Nadu Amendment, by which the State unilaterally dismantled a long-
standing, expert-driven, national framework for Vice-Chancellor appointments, and
10
India Const. art. 14.
11
Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455, 463 ¶ 25.
12
S.P. Kapoor v. State of H.P. (1981) 4 SCC 716, 739 ¶ 33.
12
replaced it with a State-government controlled process, exemplifies precisely this
undue haste. such a radical shift in the governance of higher education, a matter of
national importance, requires extensive deliberation, stakeholder consultation, and
reasoned analysis—none of which appear to have been undertaken before this sudden
legislative action.
6. the speed and manner of the amendment strongly suggest that the decision was not
motivated by a considered effort to improve academic standards, but by an ulterior
motive to consolidate State control over university appointments. inference is
reinforced by the principle laid down in Bahadursinh Gohil, wherein the Court held
that:
“…a change in opinion which came into being only upon change in the holder of the
office is a classic indicator of arbitrariness and bad faith.”
7. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that the reasoning in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. Union of India13 is directly applicable to the present case. A Vice-
Chancellorship is a position of immense power, prestige, and public trust, akin to a
form of "wealth" or "largesse" dispensed by the State.
8. the Constitution forbids the State from distributing such largesse arbitrarily or at its
mere discretion. The exercise of this power must be confined and structured by
rational, relevant, and non-discriminatory standards or norms.
9. the UGC Regulations provide a clear, rational, and relevant national standard for the
appointment of Vice-Chancellors. By removing the mandatory inclusion of UGC
nominees and centralizing the appointment process with the State Government, the
Tamil Nadu amendment dismantles this structured norm, opening the door to
appointments based on political loyalty or other irrational, unreasonable, or
discriminatory criteria, rather than academic merit and leadership.
10. the State has miserably failed to justify this departure from a rational and objective
national standard, thereby rendering the amendment arbitrary and unconstitutional.
11. And in light of the above, the Tamil Nadu Amendment violates Article 14, as it
substitutes a reasoned and constitutionally mandated process with one susceptible to
non-academic and arbitrary considerations, undermining fairness, transparency, and
the standards of higher education.
13
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489, 504 ¶ 12.
13
B. Violation of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Principles of Good
Administration
1. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that universities, academicians,
and students have a legitimate expectation grounded in the UGC Act, 1956, and
decades of practice that appointments to the critical office of Vice-Chancellor will be
made in accordance with transparent, merit-based norms established by the national
expert body, the University Grants Commission.
2. the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Sivanandan C.T. v. State of Kerala 14
has held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation extends to include the principles of
good administration, which require that State decisions be consistent, transparent, and
predictable.
3. the sudden and unilateral withdrawal by the State of Tamil Nadu from this well-
established, expert-driven framework grossly violates the legitimate expectations of
the academic community and the institutions governed by the UGC framework. such
action represents a failure of good administration, as it undermines predictability,
transparency, and accountability in the process of appointing the academic and
executive head of universities.
4. by disregarding established norms and central oversight, the State’s amendment acts
against the national interest and the interests of the academic community, warranting
intervention by this Hon’ble Court.
5. The Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that the Court in Gambhirdan
further-held:
"The State Act… must be amended to bring it on a par with the applicable UGC
Regulations and until then it is the applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail."
6. the State of Tamil Nadu has done the exact opposite. Instead of bringing its law in
conformity with national standards, it has enacted an amendment that further dilutes
the standards, creating a direct conflict with the UGC Regulations.
PRAYER
14
Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (2024) 3 SCC 799, 815 ¶ 45.
14
Wherefore, in light of the arguments advanced, the constitutional principles invoked, and the
judicial precedents relied upon, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court
may be graciously pleased to:
(a) DECLARE that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018,
are mandatory and binding on all universities, including State universities;
(b) DECLARE the impugned provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Amendment Act
as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void, being repugnant to the UGC Act, 1956.
(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby:
DIRECTING the State of Tamil Nadu and all universities under its territory to strictly
adhere to the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellors as mandated under the UGC
Regulations, 2018
(d) PASS any other such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, and in the interests of justice and upholding the
sanctity of higher education standards.
PLACE: New Delhi
DATE: 9 September 2025
15
