With the possibility of a consensus on vice chancellors of two universities receding, the Supreme Court has stepped in.

On Thursday, as forewarned by it on December 5, the Supreme Court asked the committees headed by retired Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to recommend one name each for A P J Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology. The names are to be submitted in a sealed cover by December 17. The Court will take up the matter on December 18.

On December 5, the Court told the Chancellor and the Chief Minister to arrive at a consensus before Tuesday, December 9. "You all have to reach some consensus. If you are unable to reach some consensus, then the intervention of the Court is the only option," Justice Pardiwala had said. Justice K V Viswanathan is the other judge in the SC bench hearing the case.

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had objected to the Chancellor's preference for Ciza Thomas as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Technological University. He has no issues with Priya Chandran for the Digital University, even if she was not his first preference.

In fact, the two picks made by the Chancellor - Ciza Thomas and Priya Chandran - were the only names that featured in both the search committee lists headed by retired Justice Dhulia. 

After the SC called for consensus, higher education minister R Bindu and law minister P Rajeeve met Governor Rajendra Arlekar at the Lok Bhavan on December 10. The conciliatory meeting failed as the Governor stuck to his stand.

At the hearing on Thursday, the judges refused to examine a letter the Chancellor had sent to the Chief Minister on the VC appointment issue. The bench asked the Attorney General of India R Venkataramani to hand over the communication to Justice Dhulia. 

Jaideep Gupta, who appeared for Kerala, informed the apex court that the CM's objection was limited to just one name: Ciza Thomas. "When she was the temporary Vice Chancellor, she completely disrupted the functioning of the University," Live Law quoted Gupta as telling the SC.

The CM had forwarded his priority list to the Chancellor after receiving the list of names recommended by the search committees headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia for both the Technological University, and the Digital University. When the Governor rearranged the priority, bringing Ciza Thomas right on top, the CM was livid. 

He said the Chancellor was obliged to go by his priorities. "How can an authority like the Governor violate a Supreme Court directive? It is beyond comprehension," he said on December 5.

The CM even hinted that the Governor's move was part of a larger BJP scheme to undermine federalism. "How can a Governor alone summon the guts to disobey the Supreme Court," the CM said, implying that Governor Arlekar has the Centre's backing. 

The Supreme Court order of August 18 allows both the Chief Minister and the Governor/Chancellor to make their competing claims.

Here is what the CM finds in his favour in the SC order: "The recommendations made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, duly endorsed by the learned Chairperson (Justice Dhulia), shall be put up before the Chief Minister for necessary consideration. In case the Chief Minister has reasons to believe that any shortlisted person is unsuitable for appointment as Vice Chancellor, the remarks to this effect along with the supporting material and the original record of the recommendation made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, shall be put up before the learned Chancellor within two weeks. The Chief Minister shall be entitled to recommend the shortlisted names in order of preference for appointment as Vice-Chancellors."

But the legitimacy of the Chancellor's action in making his displeasure known and making his own choice is also derived from the same order. Of course, the order states that the Chancellor should appoint the Vice Chancellors "in the same order of

preference as recommended by the Chief Minister of the State". 

Nonetheless, it is not as if the Chancellor should blindly accept the CM's recommendation. "In case the learned Chancellor has any reservation against the empanelled names and/or the remarks made by the Chief Minister of the State against any shortlisted candidate, the learned Chancellor shall be entitled to put up his own opinion on file, duly supported with reasons and relevant material," the August 18 order says.

The Governor submitted his objection after the Supreme Court on November 28 expressed its displeasure at his perceived inaction. 

On December 4, the Chancellor filed an affidavit in the apex court with his preferences for the top jobs. In the affidavit, the Chancellor said he was convinced of Thomas' performance.