Introduction
In a significant development concerning higher education governance and federal constitutional functioning, the Supreme Court of India has facilitated partial resolution of the long-standing deadlock between the West Bengal Government and the Governor over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in State Universities. In State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023), the Court recorded consensus on 8 Vice-Chancellor appointments while referring disputes concerning 3 remaining universities back to a Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India Justice U.U. Lalit.
The ruling is crucial not only for restoring academic administration but also for clarifying the constitutional roles of the Governor as Chancellor, the State Government, and independent selection committees.
Background: The West Bengal VC Appointment Deadlock
The controversy arises from prolonged disagreement between the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, and the Governor of West Bengal, acting in his capacity as Chancellor of State Universities, over VC appointments.
Out of 36 State Universities, appointments in several institutions had stalled due to conflicting views on:
- Candidate suitability
- Procedure adopted by Search-cum-Selection Committees
- Alleged unilateralism by constitutional authorities
Given the institutional paralysis affecting universities, the Supreme Court intervened and earlier constituted a Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by Justice U.U. Lalit to break the impasse.
Supreme Court Bench and Proceedings
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the West Bengal Government, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani represented the Governor.
The Court was informed that both constitutional authorities had arrived at consensus on 8 Vice-Chancellor appointments, marking a significant step toward resolving the conflict.
Universities Where Consensus Was Reached
The 8 universities for which appointments were agreed upon are:
- Sanskrit College & University
- Cooch Behar Panchanan Barma University
- Harichand Guruchand University
- Raiganj University
- Diamond Harbour Women’s University
- Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University
- Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
- West Bengal State University
The Supreme Court accordingly directed the Chief Minister to forward the agreed names to the Governor, who, as Chancellor, is required to issue formal appointment notifications.
Disputed Universities Referred Back to Justice Lalit Committee
With respect to the remaining three universities, no agreement could be reached between the State and the Governor:
- University of North Bengal
- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (MAKAUT)
- Netaji Subhash Open University
Recognising the divergence of opinions, the Court referred these matters back to the Justice U.U. Lalit-led Search-cum-Selection Committee.
Scope of the Committee’s Powers
The Supreme Court granted the Committee discretion to:
- Recommend a fresh panel from existing candidates, or
- Initiate an entirely new selection process
The Committee has been requested to examine all materials furnished by the parties and endeavour to take a decision within four weeks.
Key Legal Observation: Fairness in Selection Committees
One of the most important aspects of the ruling is the Court’s emphasis on fairness and impartiality in academic appointments. The Supreme Court reiterated that experts who are personally known to candidates should not form part of the selection committee, as this undermines transparency and institutional credibility.
This observation aligns with broader principles of:
- Natural justice
- Administrative fairness
- Conflict-free decision-making
Constitutional Dimensions: Governor vs State Government
The case highlights a recurring constitutional tension regarding:
- The Governor’s discretionary powers, and
- The State Government’s executive authority
While the Governor acts as Chancellor under State university laws, the Supreme Court’s approach reflects a harmonious construction of powers, ensuring that:
- Neither authority acts unilaterally
- Institutional autonomy is preserved
- Academic governance remains insulated from political deadlock
The Court’s reliance on an independent committee headed by a former CJI underscores judicial preference for neutral institutional mechanisms over adversarial constitutional confrontations.
Progress So Far: Numbers Matter
To recap:
- Total universities involved: 36
- Resolved earlier in phases: 25
- Newly agreed appointments: 8
- Remaining under consideration: 3
This means that 33 out of 36 universities have now either finalised or are close to finalising Vice-Chancellor appointments, restoring much-needed administrative stability.
Significance of the Judgment
1. Restoring University Governance
Prolonged absence of Vice-Chancellors adversely affects academic functioning, funding, recruitment, and policy implementation. The ruling prioritises institutional continuity.
2. Reinforcing Independent Selection
By empowering the Justice Lalit Committee, the Court reinforces the role of independent expert bodies in public appointments.
3. Limiting Constitutional Deadlocks
The judgment serves as a template for resolving similar disputes between Governors and elected governments in other States.
4. Upholding Transparency
Excluding conflicted experts strengthens public confidence in academic administration.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the West Bengal Vice-Chancellor appointments case is a measured and institution-centric intervention. By recording consensus where possible and referring disputes to an independent committee where differences persist, the Court has ensured that constitutional balance, academic integrity, and administrative efficiency are all preserved.
As India’s higher education system increasingly grapples with governance challenges, this judgment stands out as an example of how judicial mediation can restore functionality without encroaching upon executive autonomy.
Also Read
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
