No immunity as chancellor: Why high court put Governor’s university powers under judicial scrutiny

“The immunity of the Governor has held that no immunity was necessary in respect of acts done by the Governor in his public capacity other than that as a Governor, and therefore, the objection raised by the Registry may be overruled,” the court said on May 5, citing a precedent, and rejected an objection that the Chancellor could not be made a party to the proceedings.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu examined whether a Governor serving as Chancellor of a university enjoys immunity from legal proceedings under Article 361 of the Constitution. (File image, enhanced using AI)

Final direction

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the recruitment dispute or the validity of the appointment under challenge, the high court disposed of the petition with a direction that the Chancellor take a decision on the petitioner’s complaint in accordance with law and do so expeditiously.

“The inquiry report is already submitted on the complaint of the petitioner; hence, it is expected from respondent no. 1 (Governor as Chancellor) to take a decision on the complaint made by petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously,” the court observed.

Recruitment dispute reaches high court

• The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated through an advertisement dated June 14, 2024, for the post of Professor (Commerce).
• Rajesh Kumar Shukla approached the high court seeking quashing of the appointment of respondent Dr Atul Dubey, who was appointed to the post on March 24, 2025.
• He also sought a direction for his own appointment, claiming that he had secured the highest marks in the interview process.
• Apart from challenging the appointment, the petitioner requested action on a complaint he had submitted regarding the recruitment process and sought consideration of an inquiry report allegedly supporting his grievance.

Registry raises objection

• When the matter came up before the court, the registry pointed out that the Chancellor had allegedly been impleaded erroneously as a respondent.
• This prompted the court to examine whether a Governor serving as Chancellor of a university enjoys immunity from legal proceedings under Article 361 of the Constitution.
• Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint had been forwarded to the Governor and that a three-member committee had conducted an inquiry and submitted its report before the commissioner, Bilaspur division, on May 20, 2025.
• The report was later forwarded to the Governor through a memorandum dated May 25, 2025.
• Since he, as Chancellor, was required to make a decision on the complaint, the petitioner contended that the Chancellor was a necessary party.

Court examines scope of Governor’s immunity

To resolve the issue, the high court considered the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s landmark decision in Dr S C Barat v Hari Vinayak Pataskar (1962), which dealt with the extent of immunity available to a Governor functioning as Chancellor of a university.

The earlier judgment had held that Article 361 grants immunity to the Governor in relation to the exercise of constitutional powers and duties attached to the office of Governor.

However, it distinguished those powers from functions discharged in a separate statutory capacity, such as that of a university Chancellor.

The ruling specifically concluded that immunity does not extend to acts performed by a Governor while functioning in another public office.

The high court reproduced substantial portions of the 1962 judgment, including its conclusion that constitutional protection under Article 361 could not be enlarged to cover actions taken in a different public capacity merely because the individual holding that office also happened to be the Governor.

Reliance on Supreme Court precedent

Justice Sahu also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhuri Nath v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1997), which examined the nature of powers exercised by a Governor under a statutory framework.

The Supreme Court had observed that where legislation specifically entrusts powers to the Governor in a statutory role, those powers are exercised independently and are distinct from functions performed as the constitutional head of the State.

The judgment further recognised that a Governor serving as Chancellor of a university occupies a statutory office separate from the office of Governor and exercises powers under the relevant university law without interference from the state government.

Referring to these authorities, the Chhattisgarh High Court overruled the registry’s objection and held that the Chancellor could validly remain a respondent in the proceedings.

Inquiry report already submitted

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the university submitted that the pleadings themselves showed that the complaint as well as the inquiry report had already been placed before the Chancellor for consideration.

The court also noted that an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner had been withdrawn on May 1.

Further, the inquiry report directed by the Chancellor had already been submitted on May 21, 2025, in relation to the petitioner’s complaint.

Why judgment matters

Although the court stopped short of deciding the legality of the professor’s appointment, the ruling is significant for its clarification of the constitutional position of Governors acting as Chancellors of universities.

The judgment reiterates that statutory powers exercised in that capacity are distinct from the Governor’s constitutional functions and can therefore be subjected to judicial scrutiny.

The order, passed on May 5, is likely to be cited in future disputes involving university administration, appointments and decisions taken by Chancellors who hold office by virtue of being Governors of their respective states.