Context: The role of the Governor as Chancellor of State universities has become a subject of intense debate in recent times, because of the draft UGC Regulations on the selection and appointment of Vice Chancellors of Universities, which has given wide ranging powers to the Governors.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Governor as Chancellor: Challenges and Way Forward.
Historical Background
- In 1857, the British established universities in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, making Governors of the respective presidencies their ex-officio Chancellors. This was intended to maintain colonial control over higher education and limit university autonomy.
- Post-independence, this role of Governors as Chancellors of universities was adopted without any reassessment of its relevance. The focus remained on control rather than fostering democratic and federal governance in education.
- Presently, Governors as Chancellors, exercise significant authority over universities, such as appointing Vice-Chancellors, nominating syndicate members, and approving university statutes, this has led to conflict especially in opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu.
Challenges in the Current Model
- Politicisation of the Governor’s Office: From 1947–67, due to one party dominance at both Centre and State level, Governors acted as ceremonial figures.
- Post-1967, multi-party politics increased the politicization of Governors, transforming them into instruments of Central government control. Studies reveal that a significant percentage of Governors are former politicians or bureaucrats, lacking academic credentials and act on political considerations.
- Creates dual authority: Governors, appointed by the Centre, exercise considerable powers in universities matters related to appointments despite State governments funding and managing them. This hampers the implementation of projects and innovation sought by the universities.
- Challenges related to federalism: The involvement of Central-appointed Governors in State-run universities undermines the principle of federal autonomy.
- Limited accountability: While Governors exercise power in university matters, they are not accountable to elected State governments. Governors often bypass State Ministries of Higher Education while making critical decisions.
- Contrasts with Central Universities: In contrast, the President, as Visitor of Central universities, consults with the Ministry of Education and lays statutes before Parliament to ensure legislative oversight. On the contrary, Governors act unilaterally in State universities, with no equivalent accountability.
Recommendations of Various Commissions and Reports:
- Rajamannar Committee (1969–71): Advocated that the Governor, even in statutory roles like Chancellor, must act on the advice of the State government.
- Sarkaria Commission (1983–88): Recognised that the Governor’s role as Chancellor is statutory (and not constitutional) and must be defined by State laws. It recommended that Governors consult with Chief Ministers while retaining independent judgment in university matters.
- M.N. Venkatachaliah Commission (2000–02): It has called for political neutrality in Governors and further suggested a clearer definition of Chancellor’s functions. It also advocated for a supportive rather than authoritative role for the Governor to enhance university autonomy.
- M.M. Punchhi Commission (2007–10): Recommended that Governors focus solely on constitutional responsibilities and proposed appointing eminent academics or public figures as Chancellors instead of Governors to ensure academic independence and prevent conflict.
Suggested Models for Chancellor Roles
- Governor as ceremonial Chancellor model: The Governor acts on the advice of the State government in university matters. (Gujarat (1978), Karnataka (2000), and Maharashtra (2021) have adopted this model.)
- Chief Minister as Chancellor model: Places the Chief Minister in the ceremonial role of Chancellor. West Bengal and Punjab passed Bills in 2023 to implement this model, but these await Presidential assent.
- State-appointed Chancellor model: The State government appoints a ceremonial Chancellor (an eminent academician or public figure). Telangana implemented this in 2015, and Kerala passed a Bill for this model in 2022, still awaiting Presidential assent. (This model is best suited for India.)
- Chancellor elected by university bodies model: Empowering alumni or university governing bodies to elect the Chancellor. This approach is followed by universities like Oxford and Cambridge.
- Chancellor Appointed by the Executive Council Model: The university’s Executive Council or Board of Governors selects a ceremonial Chancellor through a transparent process. University of Melbourne (Australia) follows this model.
Way Forward
- Reforming State universities in India demands a careful balance of key principles: ensuring accountability to elected State governments, minimising political interference, promoting institutional self-governance, and fostering academic freedom and excellence.
- State-level reforms: States must amend university laws to replace Governors with eminent academicians or public figures as Chancellors. (Telangana’s State-appointed Chancellor model.)
- Federal-level reforms: The Centre should facilitate progressive reforms that seek to dismantle colonial-era administrative structures and expedite Presidential assent for progressive State Bills, such as those passed in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab.
- Promote accountability and autonomy: Universities should have greater self-governance, limiting interference from political or external authorities.
- Global best practices: Learn from models in the U.K., Canada, and Australia, where Chancellors provide ceremonial leadership without executive powers.