Senior Advocate P Wilson: We have filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court, when we mentioned the matter, asked to inform your lordship. Kindly see the memo for a moment. @PWilsonDMK

@PWilsonDMK Advocate General PS Raman says related matter re conflict between UGC and State laws was filed in Supreme Court earlier, it is pending before top court.

@PWilsonDMK Court: Was there any stay (by Supreme Court) in that proceeding?

@PWilsonDMK Wilson: There is no urgency ... (In earlier case filed by TN against Governor) Supreme Court has come down heavily on Governor ... Because of that Act have come into force ...

@PWilsonDMK Wilson: Lordships may post this case after vacation.. Transfer petition before Supreme Court likely to be listed in a day or two... We are without any Vice Chancellors as of today, we are struggling like anything.

@PWilsonDMK Wilson: There is no urgency. Amendment is only with respect to who is appointing authority (for Vice Chancellors) and certain visitation rights. Petitioner's lawyer: They say there is no urgency. They have come out with effacement of an institution.

Wilson: Petitioner is a BJP district secretary from Tirunelveli, there is no urgency at all in this matter. We have argued at length before Supreme Court. There is parallel litigation before Supreme Court.

Court: Your memo is taken on record. Let us hear Mr. Naidu (petitioner's counsel).

Advocate General PS Raman says not enough time has been given for State to file a response, when a legislation is being challenged like this, it is difficult to file a counter in 5 days time. Court: Only pure questions of law have been raised, not one line on facts.

AG PS Raman: Last cause of action was April 11 ... and now we are on May 20. And he is insisting on stay ... Nothing is going to happen in next week of 10 days... He has to say, what is the urgency?

Petitioner's counsel: In one breadth they say nothing is going to happen, and next thing (they will do something)

Wilson: Lordship is not giving fair hearing, we have to file counter. We are saying we have filed transfer petition ... Lordships has not even called upon to file counter.. affidavit does not show any urgency at all... This is not the way milord

Wilson: I am asking to myself, how did the vacation officer entertain the writ petition? Act came into force in April. Heavens will not fall ... We have not even been called to file a counter affidavit ... Kindly post this matter next week. We will file detailed counter affidavit

Wilson: What is urgency to hear matter today? ... This is not a matter that has to be heard like this. It is a matter concerning universities. Governor is waging a war against the State. This is not fair at all!

Wilson: What is the public interest he (petitioner) has got, it is politically motivated.

Petitioner's counsel says he will address the Court purely on questions of law; he refers Wilson's argument that Supreme Court's judgment on Governors' powers has 'taken the nation by storm.' Petitioner: With greatest respect, my petition has nothing to do with that judgment.

The matter is being heard by Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan.

Petitioner's counsel: If there is no Chancellor (Governor), it is a misnomer to call someone Vice-Chancellor.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu is appearing for the petitioner, who is seeking a stay on the challenged laws. Naidu reads from regulations and caselaws. Wilson (appearing through VC) objects, says he has not been served with a copy of the documents Naidu is referring to.

Naidu says he will refer only the caselaws, not other documents that Wilson may not have ready access to. Naidu continues reading from caselaws.

Naidu: It is a question of education, not a question of political ideology.

Naidu: Education without any colour of politics, it should be in the hands of an authority that is above politics.

Naidu: Whole role (of Chancellor/ Governor) has been taken away without any justification. (Law under challenge) is manifestly arbitrary. No reasons are forthcoming.

Wilson asks Naidu for citation of a case he is reading from: You are arguing at the 4th hour, please give the citation. Wilson thanks Judges for helping with the info. Judge: I think there is some issue (with VC), you can hear the arguments but not the citation.

Wilson says he can hear the judges well, but is not able to hear the arguments very well. Judge (lighter vein): Dont be so serious all the time. Wilson: We have to be serious, this is a very serious matter.

Advocate General PS Raman: UGC has been given certain powers, under Entry 66 list 1 of constitution. Parliament has given UGC some powers. It is our stated case that constitution of search committee is not one of those.

AG: This is exactly the stance we have taken in writ petition pending before Supreme Court.

AG: This entire issue of whether UGC regulation will prevail over state law or not, is a larger issue; there is nothing manifestly arbitrary.

AG: There is no prima facie case made out by petitioner... This is a constitutional issue, where is the question of primary facie invalidity made at this juncture, we will have to file our response.

AG says a possible inconsistency between two caselaws is what led Supreme Court to entertain Tamil Nadu's writ petition, while hinting matter may even have to be referred to larger bench.