Context: Should Governors head State Universities?

Source: The Hindu

There is much disagreement concerning the governor’s role as the chancellor of state universities. It is frequently misunderstood as a post-independence policy to protect academic institutions from political meddling. State University legislation, not the Indian Constitution, have given the governor this responsibility. It was inherited from British colonial administration and was intended to limit rather than advance university autonomy.

The first three British universities were founded in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1857. To retain direct authority, the governors of the corresponding presidencies were appointed as ex-officio Chancellors. Regretfully, even after independence, the “Governor as Chancellor” model was completely embraced for State Universities without being reevaluated for its applicability in a federal and democratic setting.

The 1^st ARC (1966–77) criticized the politicization of the Governor’s Office, and the Sarkaria Commission (1983–88) on Center-State relations found that over 60% of governors have been active politicians.

The President maintains a cordial relationship with the Center, working through the Ministry of Education and consulting with it for appointments of Vice-Chancellors, etc., while governors act unilaterally while performing similar functions for State Universities, frequently avoiding the State’s Ministry of Higher Education entirely.

The political landscape changed in 1967, with governors turning from neutral constitutional functionaries to political instruments of the Central government.

Challenges:

1.These colleges are funded by state governments; governors have significant authority without being held to account.
2. Appointment delays result from disagreements between governors and state governments, especially in states with opposition rule.

3. A large number of governors lack the training or expertise necessary to lead educational establishments.
   4. Violates the federalism principle

Alternative Models:

1. The Chief Minister as Chancellor model, which was criticized for using a prominent political person in a ceremonial capacity. Bills to implement this system were passed by West Bengal and Punjab in 2023, but they are awaiting presidential approval.
2. In 2022, Tamil Nadu enacted a bill that replaced “Chancellor” with “Government.” The president’s approval is also pending.
3. Telangana adopted the state-appointed Chancellor model in 2015. Similar bill passed in Kerala in 2022, awaits Presidential assent.
4. Chancellor elected by the University bodies similar to Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh universities.

The Centre should facilitate progressive reforms that seek to dismantle colonial-era administrative structures, guide States towards aligning their university governance models with global best practices and enable universities to focus on academic excellence free from political entanglements.

Q: “The appointment of Governors as Chancellors or heads of State Universities raises concerns regarding federalism and institutional autonomy.” Critically analyze this statement with suitable examples. (250 words)

Model Answer:

The appointment of Governors as Chancellors of State Universities has been a contentious issue in the context of federalism and institutional autonomy. This practice, though constitutionally permitted in many states, has raised concerns about the role of the Governor and its implications for academic independence and state governance.

1. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions:

• Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the Governor is the constitutional head of the state.
• In many states, as per university statutes, the Governor acts as the Chancellor, appoints Vice-Chancellors (VCs), and presides over university affairs.

2. Issues with the Practice:

• Federal Concerns: The Governor is an appointee of the Central Government, and their role in state universities may undermine the autonomy of state governments in the federal structure. For instance, disagreements over the appointment of VCs in states like Kerala and West Bengal have highlighted tensions.
• Politicization of Education: There is a growing perception of political interference when Governor’s act in a dual capacity as a constitutional head and Chancellor, leading to disputes with state governments.
• Impact on Institutional Autonomy: Excessive reliance on the Governor for appointments and decision-making hampers universities’ ability to function independently and may lead to bureaucratic delays.

3. Judicial Interventions:

• In the Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab case (1974), the Supreme Court held that the Governor’s role should be limited to constitutional functions.
• The recent West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022, replacing the Governor with the Chief Minister as Chancellor, highlights a trend toward limiting the Governor’s role.

4. Arguments in Favor of the Practice:

• The Governor’s involvement can provide a neutral, apolitical perspective in university matters.
• Ensures checks and balances against potential misuse of power by state governments.

While the role of Governors as Chancellors is rooted in constitutional provisions, the growing friction between state governments and Governors necessitates a re-examination of this practice. Ensuring academic independence while upholding federal principles is crucial. Legislative reforms, as seen in some states, may provide a viable framework to address these concerns.