PANJAB UNIVERSITY, DELHI UNIVERSITY AND PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY HAVE VP OF INDIA AS EX-OFFICIO CHANCELLOR — BUT DOES ARTICLE 64 PERMIT IT?. ARTICLE 64 SAYS VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL BE EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF RAJYA SABHA AND “SHALL NOT HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OF PROFIT” — ADVOCATE HEMANT KUMAR SEEKS CONSTITUTIONAL CLARITY
Face2News/Chandigarh
A reply furnished under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the Secretariat of the Vice-President of India has brought into focus an intriguing constitutional question: Can the Vice-President of India simultaneously hold the office of Chancellor of universities, if such a position is regarded in law as an “office of profit”?
The issue has been raised by Advocate Hemant Kumar, practising at the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, following an E-RTI application filed by him with the Vice-President’s Secretariat on September 10, 2026. In its reply dated September 17, 2026, the Secretariat has furnished information indicating that the Vice-President of India is ex-officio Chancellor of Panjab University, Chandigarh; University of Delhi; and Pondicherry University.
The present Vice-President, Shri C. P. Radhakrishnan, is officially described as Chancellor of Panjab University. The university’s official website also identifies the Vice-President as its Chancellor, while a recent PIB release described him as the “Ex-officio Chancellor” during his September 4, 2026 visit to the university.
1967 notification for Panjab University
According to the RTI material cited by Hemant Kumar, in the case of Panjab University, the Vice-President’s Secretariat supplied a copy of a Gazette notification dated August 30, 1967, issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The notification, issued in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Panjab University Act, 1947, appointed the Vice-President of India as Chancellor of Panjab University with effect from September 1, 1967.
The arrangement has continued for decades. In 2026, for instance, the Vice-President, in his capacity as Chancellor, exercised powers under the Panjab University Act in relation to the Vice-Chancellor’s tenure.
Delhi University: Statute 11-B
For the University of Delhi, the RTI response reportedly supplied Statute 11-B, under which the Vice-President of India is the Chancellor of the University.
The position is also reflected in judicial records. The Delhi High Court has previously noted that under the Delhi University statutory framework, the Vice-President of India is the Chancellor, while the President of India is the Visitor and the Chief Justice of India is the Pro-Chancellor.
Pondicherry University: arrangement from 2023
In the case of Pondicherry University, the RTI response included a Gazette notification following amendment of Statute 1 of the Pondicherry University Act, 1985.
The university itself subsequently issued an official intimation stating that the Vice-President of India shall be the ex-officio Chancellor of Pondicherry University.
Thus, according to the material supplied in response to the RTI application, the same constitutional office of Vice-President is presently linked, by law or statutory provision, with the Chancellorship of three universities.
But what about Article 64?
This is where Advocate Hemant Kumar says the constitutional question becomes significant.
Article 64 of the Constitution of India expressly provides that the Vice-President shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States and “shall not hold any other office of profit.” The constitutional text itself contains the prohibition.
Hemant Kumar therefore raises the question whether the office of Chancellor of these universities can, in the circumstances applicable to each university, constitute an “office of profit”, and, if so, how the existing statutory arrangements are to be reconciled with Article 64.
He points out that the expression “office of profit” does not have one comprehensive statutory definition applicable to every constitutional context. Its interpretation has developed through constitutional provisions and judicial decisions, with factors such as remuneration, source of appointment, governmental control and the nature of the office becoming relevant in different cases.
Article 102 is different
The issue, Hemant Kumar points out, should not simply be equated with the ordinary parliamentary disqualification provisions.
Under Article 102(1)(a), a person can be disqualified from being chosen as, or continuing as, a Member of either House of Parliament if he holds an office of profit under the Government of India or a State Government, subject to offices declared by Parliament by law not to attract disqualification.
Parliament has enacted the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, which specifies offices whose holders are not disqualified from membership of Parliament.
According to Hemant Kumar, however, Article 64 is worded differently: it directly regulates the office of Vice-President and says that the Vice-President “shall not hold any other office of profit.” Therefore, he argues, the issue cannot automatically be resolved merely by referring to the parliamentary exemption mechanism under Article 102.
A distinction that may hold the key
There is, however, an important legal distinction.
The mere fact that an office is described as “Chancellor” does not by itself establish that it is an “office of profit.” Parliamentary committee material concerning offices of profit has previously examined the status of university Chancellors and recorded the view that the position of Chancellor of Central Universities, in the circumstances considered, did not attract disqualification, particularly where the Chancellor received no remuneration other than permissible compensatory allowances and exercised primarily ceremonial or university-governance functions.
Consequently, the central legal question is not simply “Is the Vice-President a Chancellor?”—that is documented—but rather “Does the particular office of Chancellor, as constituted under each relevant university law, amount to an office of profit for the purposes of Article 64?”
That question may require a detailed examination of the respective statutes, rules, powers, remuneration or allowances, mode of appointment and actual functions attached to the Chancellorship.
President, Governor and Vice-President: different constitutional formulations
Hemant Kumar also draws attention to another constitutional distinction.
While referring to the constitutional provisions concerning the President of India and Governors, he notes that the constitutional scheme does not use the same formulation found in Article 64 declaring that the President or Governor “shall not hold any other office of profit.”
At the same time, the Constitution separately contains provisions governing eligibility for election as President and Vice-President, including provisions concerning offices of profit. Article 66(4), for example, deals with eligibility for election as Vice-President and contains an explanation concerning the constitutional offices themselves.
Three universities, one constitutional question
The RTI disclosure therefore places an unusual constitutional question in the public domain:
If the Vice-President of India is constitutionally restricted from holding another office of profit, what is the precise legal character of the Chancellorships of Panjab University, Delhi University and Pondicherry University?
The answer may ultimately depend upon the statutory nature of each office and whether the office satisfies the established legal tests for an “office of profit.”
Hemant Kumar maintains that the issue merits authoritative constitutional clarification, particularly because the Vice-President is not merely an elected political office-holder but a constitutional functionary whose position is expressly regulated by Article 64.
The controversy, therefore, is not about the existence of the three Chancellorship arrangements—their statutory or official basis is documented—but about the constitutional compatibility of those arrangements with the specific prohibition contained in Article 64.
The question now awaiting a definitive legal answer is whether these Chancellorships are merely statutory/ex-officio academic offices, or whether any of them can legally fall within the constitutional expression “office of profit” used in Article 64.
National
Trending
