“In… a situation” the place “the statute makes a clear-cut distinction between two distinct authorities, namely, the Chancellor and the State Government… the same must also be interpreted distinctly, and while dealing with the case of the Vice-Chancellor, the Governor, being the Chancellor of the University, acts only in his personal capacity, and therefore, the powers and duties exercised and performed by him under a statute related to the University, as its Chancellor, have absolutely no relation to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties by him while he holds office as the Governor of the state”, the bench, additionally comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stated.

Discussing whether or not Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in his function as Chancellor abdicated or surrendered the statutory energy vested on him underneath the Kannur University Act, 1996, Justice Pardiwala stated, “It is a well-settled (and indeed, bedrock) principle of administrative law that if a statute expressly confers a statutory power on a particular body or authority or imposes a statutory duty on the same, then such power must be exercised or duty performed (as the case may) by that very body or authority itself and none other. If the body or authority exercises the statutory power or performs the statutory duty acting at the behest, or on the dictate, of any other body or person, then this is regarded as an abdication of the statutory mandate and any decision taken on such basis is contrary to law and liable to be quashed.”

The judgment learn: “Rule of law requires that a statutory power vests in the body or authority where the statute so provides, and likewise, the discharge of the statutory duty is the responsibility of the body or authority to which it is entrusted. That body or authority cannot merely rubber-stamp an action taken elsewhere or simply endorse or ratify the decision of someone else.”

The SC recalled that in its 1981 judgment in Hardwari Lal, Rohtak v. G.D. Tapase, Chandigarh, a full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereas coping with powers of the Governor with respect to the appointment/removing of Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, underneath the Maharshi Dayanand University (Amendment) Act, 1980, had held that “the Governor was the ex officio Chancellor of the University. Therefore, by virtue of his office, he was not bound to act under the aid and advice of the council of ministers”.