The long-standing stalemate between the Kerala government and the Governor of Kerala over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) to two major universities has prompted the Supreme Court to intervene decisively. On December 11, 2025, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan directed a court-appointed Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to submit one final candidate for each university — APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Digital University Kerala (DUK).
The apex court’s directions come amid protracted disagreements between the Governor (acting as Chancellor) and the State government, which have stalled regular VC appointments for months. Despite repeated hearings, dialogue between the constitutional authorities has failed to break the deadlock, compelling the Court to mandate a conclusive solution.
Background: Governor–Government Rift Over VC Appointments
The dispute centres on who should be appointed to the posts of Vice-Chancellors at KTU and Digital University. Under the current legal framework, VC appointments are made based on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee, after which the Chancellor makes the final appointment.
However, communication breakdown between the Kerala Governor and the State government has slowed the process considerably. The Governor’s office maintains that the executive has stalled progress through objections to shortlisted candidates. Conversely, the State argues that the Chancellor has disregarded valid objections and bypassed established procedures.
As the conflict escalated, the Supreme Court constituted a special committee led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to ensure a fair, transparent, and legally sound selection process.
Supreme Court’s Firm Stand: Enough Delay
At the December 11 hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, attempted to submit a sealed envelope containing additional correspondence between the Chancellor and the Chief Minister. The Bench, however, refused to entertain it, stating clearly:
“We will not get into all this. We want to have a look at the committee report.”
The Court emphasised that it was not concerned with political exchanges but rather with resolving the administrative paralysis in the universities.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State of Kerala, submitted that ministers had met the Chancellor to communicate the government’s stance. He claimed that the Chief Minister objected only to one candidate, a former temporary Vice-Chancellor accused of disrupting the functioning of the university.
However, the Attorney General disputed this, asserting that the candidate had merely highlighted irregularities in the university audit, suggesting the State’s objection was retaliatory.
The Key Point: A Candidate Eligible for Both Universities
Justice Pardiwala noted that the committee had found one woman candidate eligible for both universities, questioning why at least one appointment could not be made to break the impasse:
“The lady who is found eligible for both universities… At least go ahead with her in one of the universities.”
This observation underscored the Court’s intent to push the authorities towards a practical resolution.
The State persisted with its objection, claiming the candidate had “completely disrupted” administrative functioning while serving in an interim capacity. The Bench, however, demanded clarity on how this disruption occurred, signaling scepticism toward vague objections.
Court Observes: Consensus Efforts Have Failed
In its order, the Supreme Court recorded that:
- The Justice Dhulia-headed committee has completed its selection process.
- The Governor and the Chief Minister have failed to reach consensus.
- The prolonged correspondence between the two sides has only delayed urgent university appointments.
The Court stated:
“Despite the best of our efforts, the deadlock continues till this date. The Chancellor and the Chief Minister have not been able to reach any consensus for appointment of Vice-Chancellors in the two universities.”
This acknowledgment shows the Court’s frustration with both authorities for failing to rise above political disagreements in the interest of educational governance.
Fresh Direction: Submit One Final Name Per University
To break the stalemate, the Court directed:
- The Justice Dhulia committee to consider
- the Chief Minister’s letter,
- the Chancellor’s reply, and
- any objections raised by both sides.
- After evaluation, the committee must submit one final recommended name for each university.
- The report must be submitted in a sealed cover by next Thursday (before the December 18 hearing).
This is a significant shift from earlier expectations, where the Court hoped the two constitutional authorities would mutually resolve the matter. Instead, the Supreme Court has now entrusted the neutral committee with the responsibility of giving the final word on selection.
Why This Case Matters for Kerala’s Higher Education
The VC appointments controversy is not just a political dispute. It has serious implications for:
1. University Autonomy
Regular VC appointments are essential for maintaining institutional stability and academic governance. Prolonged vacancies risk undermining autonomy and decision-making.
2. Legal Clarity
The standoff highlights ambiguities in the roles of the Governor (as Chancellor) and the State government in university administration. The Supreme Court’s final stance may set a precedent for future conflicts.
3. Academic Progress
Both KTU and DUK play key roles in Kerala’s higher education ecosystem, especially in technology and digital innovation. Leadership uncertainty affects curriculum development, administrative decisions, and overall academic credibility.
4. Centre–State Relations in Education
The episode reflects broader national debates on federal control over higher education, especially in states governed by non-BJP parties.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will take up the matter again on December 18, when the sealed report from the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia committee is expected. If the committee complies, the Court may order immediate appointments based on the final shortlisted names.
The Court’s intervention suggests that the judiciary considered the dispute too serious to leave unresolved any longer. The coming week may finally put an end to a controversy that has stalled Kerala’s university administration for months.
Also Read
Supreme Court Allows POSH Inquiry Against IRS Officer Accused of Sexual Harassment by IAS Officer
