Legal Review and Analysis of Dr S Mohan vs The Secretary to the Chancellor Puducherry Technological University & Ors 2026 INSC 100
Synopsis
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a significant constitutional question regarding the legislative competence of a Union Territory Legislature vis-à-vis the Parliament in matters of higher education. The core dispute centered on the validity of the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor under the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019, which was challenged for non-compliance with the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018. While upholding the High Court's finding that the State law was ultra vires the Central Regulations, the Supreme Court, in a unique exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, permitted the incumbent Vice-Chancellor to complete his term to avoid administrative disruption and personal stigma.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: – Dr. S. Mohan vs. The Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors.
Civil Appeal No(s). 54-55 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 4593-4594 of 2024)
Citation: 2026 INSC 100
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Article 136)
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Nature of Bench: Division Bench (Two Judges)
Date of Judgment: January 30, 2026
2. Governing Legal Framework & Key Precedents
The judgment interprets the complex interplay between central and state legislative powers in the Concurrent List:
Primary Constitutional Provisions:
Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule: Distribution of legislative powers between the Union (List I), State (List II), and Concurrent (List III) subjects.
Article 254: Doctrine of repugnancy – deals with inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.
Article 142: Power of the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice.Statutory Framework:
Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 (PTU Act): Enacted by the Puducherry Legislature. Section 14(5) prescribed the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointing the Vice-Chancellor.
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act): A Central Act enacted under Entry 66 of List I (Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education).
UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018: Regulation 7.3 mandates the inclusion of a UGC nominee in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for Vice-Chancellor appointments and bars members connected to the university.Key Judicial Precedents:
Dr. Preeti Srivastava vs. State of M.P.: Established that while States can legislate on education (Entry 25, List III), they cannot impinge upon standards in higher education, which is the exclusive domain of the Union under Entry 66, List I.
Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat: Held that UGC Regulations, being subordinate legislation under a Central Act, form part of the Act itself. Any appointment violating these regulations is unsustainable.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Bihar: Clarified that the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 is attracted only when both Union and State laws occupy the same field in the Concurrent List (List III).
Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Textile Corporation & Ors. & Rajiv Sarin & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.: Discussed the nature and scope of Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The Puducherry Legislature enacted the PTU Act, 2019, which received the President's assent.
Section 14(5) of the PTU Act prescribed a 3-member Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointing the Vice-Chancellor, comprising nominees of the Chancellor, the Government, and the Board of Governors. For the first VC, the Secretary (Higher Education) was to be a member.
A Committee was constituted as per this section (without a UGC nominee) and recommended Dr. S. Mohan, who was appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor in December 2021.
The appointment was challenged before the Madras High Court primarily on two grounds:
The Committee lacked a nominee of the UGC Chairman, violating UGC Regulation 7.3.
The inclusion of the Secretary (Higher Education)—who was also the Pro-Chancellor—violated Regulation 7.3's bar on members connected to the university.The High Court allowed the writ petitions, declared Section 14(5) of the PTU Act ultra vires the UGC Regulations, and set aside the appellant's appointment (though allowing him to continue temporarily).
Dr. S. Mohan appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee under Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, which deviated from Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, was legally valid?
Whether the PTU Act (a State law under Entry 25, List III) could prevail over the UGC Regulations (made under a Central Act under Entry 66, List I), and did the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 apply?
If the appointment process was flawed, what relief should be granted to the appellant who had been functioning as Vice-Chancellor without blemish for several years?
5. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the following definitive rulings:
On the Validity of the Committee's Composition (Issue 1):
The Court affirmed the High Court's finding. UGC Regulation 7.3, framed under the UGC Act, 1956 (traceable to Entry 66, List I), prescribes mandatory standards for appointments in higher education.
The inclusion of a UGC nominee and the exclusion of persons connected to the university are integral to maintaining national standards and preventing conflict of interest.
Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, by omitting the UGC nominee and including the Secretary (a connected person), was in direct conflict with these mandatory standards. Therefore, it was ultra vires the UGC Regulations, and the consequent appointment was legally vulnerable.On Legislative Competence & Repugnancy (Issue 2):
This was the core constitutional analysis. The Court clarified the legislative fields:
UGC Act & Regulations: Source is Entry 66, List I (Exclusive Union Power - "Coordination and determination of standards...").
PTU Act: Source is Entry 25, List III (Concurrent Power - "Education, including universities..." subject to Entry 66 of List I).
Crucial Holding: The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 applies only when both laws occupy the same field in the Concurrent List (List III). It does not apply when a State law under List III conflicts with a Union law under List I.
Since the UGC Regulations derive power from List I, the conflict is not one of repugnancy but one of "occupied field" and "lack of competence." The Union has exclusive power over "standards," and the State law cannot derogate from it. Hence, the question of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) (as discussed in Kaiser-I-Hind) does not arise.On Granting Relief to the Appellant (Issue 3):
The Court noted there was no allegation against the appellant's credentials, integrity, or performance. Removing him abruptly after years of service would cause stigma and administrative chaos.
Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to "do complete justice," the Court directed that the appellant shall continue as Vice-Chancellor till the end of his original tenure (Dec 2026) or until a new VC is duly appointed, whichever is earlier.
It also permitted him to participate in any fresh selection process without prejudice.
6. Legal Principles Established & Clarified
This judgment provides crucial clarifications on Indian federalism in the education sector:
Hierarchy in Legislative Lists: A State/UT law under Entry 25, List III (Education) is inherently subject to a Union law under Entry 66, List I (Standards in Higher Education). The latter prevails by virtue of the Union's exclusive competence, not merely through repugnancy.
Limited Scope of Article 254: Repugnancy is a conflict-resolution tool only for the Concurrent List (List III). A conflict between a List I (Union) law and a List III (State) law is decided by the non-obstante clause in Article 246(1), which gives primacy to Union power in List I.
UGC Regulations are Mandatory Standards: Regulations framed under the UGC Act are not mere guidelines but have statutory force and set national standards that cannot be diluted by State universities.
Article 142 as a Tool for Equitable Justice: The judgment exemplifies the use of Article 142 to mitigate the harsh consequences of a legal infirmity in the process, where the individual incumbent is otherwise meritorious and blameless, to ensure institutional stability.
7. Judicial Examination & Analytical Concepts
The Court's analysis was methodical and layered:
Textual Interpretation: It began with a plain reading of the relevant constitutional entries (Entry 66, List I and Entry 25, List III), the PTU Act, and the UGC Regulations.
Doctrinal Analysis: It correctly distinguished between repugnancy (Article 254) and legislative competence (Article 246). The Court applied the principle from Hoechst Pharmaceuticals to hold that Article 254 was inapplicable.
Precedent Harmonization: It reconciled the precedents of Kaiser-I-Hind (requiring specific Presidential assent for repugnancy) and Rajiv Sarin (general assent suffices) by concluding that the entire debate was moot since Article 254 itself was not triggered.
Balancing Legalism & Equity: After arriving at a strict legal conclusion (the appointment was flawed), the Court seamlessly transitioned to a remedial analysis under Article 142, balancing the need for legality with fairness, institutional continuity, and avoidance of stigma.
8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome
Final Decision & Directions:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's judgment declaring Section 14(5) of the PTU Act ultra vires the UGC Regulations and the consequent appointment process as invalid.
However, invoking Article 142, it modified the relief. Dr. S. Mohan was allowed to continue as Vice-Chancellor until December 2026 (end of his term) or until a new VC is duly appointed under the correct process, whichever is earlier.
He was permitted to apply for the fresh selection.
The Puducherry Legislature was left free to amend the PTU Act to align with UGC Regulations.Significance & Impact:
Clarifies Federal Dynamics in Education: Strengthens the primacy of the Union in setting and enforcing national educational standards through bodies like the UGC.
Protects Institutional Stability: Sets a precedent for using Article 142 to prevent disruption in vital institutions like universities when the incumbent's personal record is untarnished.
Guidance for State Legislatures: State laws on university governance must strictly conform to central regulations on standards. Non-compliance will be struck down.Critical Viewpoint: The judgment is a masterful blend of constitutional rigor and pragmatic justice. While firmly upholding the supremacy of central standards—a key feature for maintaining uniform quality in higher education—it avoided a disruptive outcome by wisely using its extraordinary powers. This prevents the punishment of a worthy individual for a procedural flaw in the law-making process.
(MCQs)
1. Under which Entry of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution does the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which empowers the framing of UGC Regulations, derive its legislative competence?
a) Entry 25 of List III
b) Entry 66 of List I
c) Entry 63 of List I
d) Entry 11 of List II
2. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution would apply only when?
a) A State law conflicts with a Central law on any subject.
b) Both the Union and State laws occupy the same field in the Concurrent List (List III).
c) A State law is enacted without the Governor's assent.
d) A Central law is enacted under a State subject.
3. Which constitutional provision did the Supreme Court invoke to allow Dr. S. Mohan to continue as Vice-Chancellor despite finding the appointment process legally flawed?
a) Article 32
b) Article 136
c) Article 142
d) Article 254(2)
4. According to the judgment, the primary reason why Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act was held ultra vires was?
a) It was enacted without the Lieutenant Governor's approval.
b) It prescribed a tenure for the Vice-Chancellor different from the UGC norms.
c) Its composition for the Search-cum-Selection Committee violated the mandatory standards prescribed under UGC Regulation 7.3.
d) It did not receive the assent of the President of India.