This article has been written by Vaishnavi Kaishav, pursuing LLM from Gujarat National Law University, specializing in Constitutional and Administrative Law.
Introduction
The Governor’s role as the Chancellor of state universities has been a subject of extensive debate, particularly concerning its alignment with constitutional principles of autonomy, impartiality, and non-political governance. While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly define the Governor’s role in university administration, it has evolved through state-specific legislation, judicial interpretations, and policy frameworks. The office of the Chancellor, historically modelled on the British system, was intended to be a neutral and ceremonial role that safeguards university autonomy from excessive executive control. However, in recent years, several states have introduced legislative amendments aimed at reducing the Governor’s powers in university governance, sparking concerns over the politicization of higher education institutions.
The Constituent Assembly Debates reflect the framers’ intention to create a higher education system insulated from political and bureaucratic influence. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized the importance of maintaining institutional autonomy in education, stating that universities should not be subjected to arbitrary state control, as they are the pillars of intellectual and social progress[1]. Judicial decisions have further reinforced the necessity of an independent and impartial framework for university administration. In Azeez Basha v. Union of India[2], the Supreme Court ruled that government interference in university matters should not override their academic and institutional independence.
The Governor’s role as Chancellor has been challenged through legislative reforms in states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra, where the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors has been shifted to the Chief Minister or the state government. While such changes aim to enhance administrative efficiency, they raise constitutional concerns about executive overreach and erosion of academic independence. MP Jain argues that excessive state intervention in university governance risks transforming academic institutions into political instruments, undermining their credibility and global standing[3]. DK Basu further supports the argument that a well-defined and neutral governance mechanism is essential to prevent the politicization of educational institutions and to ensure academic freedom[4].
Recent Supreme Court rulings have also emphasized the importance of protecting university autonomy from undue political influence. In Dr. J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[5], the Court upheld the principle that higher education institutions must function independently to fulfil their constitutional mandate. Similarly, in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi[6], the Court ruled that autonomous institutions must be shielded from excessive state control to preserve their integrity and purpose. To ensure a balanced approach to university governance, it is imperative to establish clear legal and policy guidelines that uphold the Governor’s neutrality while allowing for effective administration. This research aims to examine the constitutional validity of the Governor’s role as Chancellor, assess the impact of recent legislative changes, and explore mechanisms to maintain a balance between governance and academic independence.
The study will draw on constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, and policy recommendations to propose a framework that ensures transparent, accountable, and politically neutral university administration.
Problem statement:
Regarding higher education, the Governor’s functions as the Chancellor of State Universities in India provide interesting discussions on autonomy, governance of higher education, and political neutrality. Tension exists between the achievement of political objectives including inter-party and intra-party relations and the management of public institutions, given that the Governor has the constitutional obligation to appoint Vice-Chancellors, sanction statutes, and attend the academic meetings as an officer of the university. These strains deeply compromise this balance between effective management and academic autonomy. The same need for a critical appraisal of this role stems from Syed Bashiruddin v. amu and various recent legislative actions aimed at reducing the Governor’s powers.
Objectives:
- To analyse the constitutional and legal framework governing the Governor’s role in state university administration.
- To assess the impact of the Governor’s role on university autonomy and governance.
- To provide recommendations for redefining this role to balance effective administration and academic freedom.
Research Questions:
- Does the Governor’s role as Chancellor align with constitutional principles of autonomy and impartiality?
- How have recent legislative changes affected the governance of state universities?
- What measures can ensure a balance between effective university governance and independence from political interference?
Research Method:
A doctrinal research methodology will be employed, relying on primary sources such as constitutional provisions, statutes, case laws, and secondary sources like scholarly articles and reports.
Possible Conclusions:
- The Governor’s role should be redefined to focus on ceremonial and oversight functions rather than administrative control.
- Collaborative governance frameworks involving academic and state government representatives can enhance decision-making.
- Insulating university administration from political pressures is critical to preserving academic autonomy.
Governor’s Role Under the Indian Constitution
The Governor, as the constitutional head of a state, derives powers and responsibilities from the Indian Constitution. While primarily an executive authority, the Governor also plays a significant role in higher education by serving as the Chancellor of state universities. The constitutional provisions relevant to the Governor’s role in university administration include:
Article 154: Executive Power of the State
Article 154 vests the executive power of the state in the Governor, who exercises it either directly or through officer’s subordinate to them, in accordance with the Constitution[7]. This power extends to the administration of state universities, where Governors often function as Chancellors and oversee their governance.
Article 162: Extent of Executive Power Concerning State Subjects
Under Article 162, the executive power of a state extends to matters with respect to which the State Legislature has the authority to make laws[8]. Since education falls under the Concurrent List (Entry 25, List III of the Seventh Schedule), states have the power to legislate on university matters. However, the Governor’s role as Chancellor is defined through state legislation, leading to variations in different states.
Article 163: Governor’s Discretionary Powers
Article 163 provides that the Governor is required to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where discretion is explicitly granted by the Constitution[9]. This provision creates ambiguity regarding the Governor’s independent role as Chancellor of universities. While some argue that the Governor should act on the advice of the state government, others contend that the role of Chancellor is a statutory office, granting some autonomy to the Governor.
Article 200: Assent to Bills and Legislative Discretion
Article 200 empowers the Governor to grant or withhold assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature or reserve them for the consideration of the President[10]. This has been a contentious issue in university administration, where state governments have attempted to curtail the Governor’s role as Chancellor by passing amendments to University Acts, some of which have been stalled at the Governor’s level.
Statutory Role of the Governor as Chancellor
The Governor’s position as the Chancellor of state universities is primarily defined through state university statutes rather than the Constitution. This role includes presiding over university convocations, appointing Vice-Chancellors, and overseeing policy implementation in higher education institutions. However, the extent of the Governor’s powers varies across states. The University Grants Commission (UGC), established under the UGC Act, 1956, regulates higher education at the national level. However, the administration of state universities remains primarily under state control, with Governors traditionally serving as Chancellors under state university laws[11].
Examples from Various State University Acts
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 – The Governor, as Chancellor, appoints Vice-Chancellors and ensures compliance with UGC guidelines[12].
- West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022 – Removed the Governor as Chancellor and replaced the position with the Chief Minister, limiting the Governor’s oversight of university affairs[13].
- Tamil Nadu Universities Act (Proposed Amendment, 2022) – Similar to West Bengal, proposed amendments sought to transfer the power of appointing Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the state government[14]. These legislative changes highlight the ongoing debate over the Governor’s role, with some states advocating for reduced gubernatorial involvement to prevent political interference, while others argue for the retention of the Governor’s authority to maintain impartiality in university administration.
Landmark Case Laws
Azeez Basha v Union of India
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Aligarh Muslim University, despite its historical origins, was not established by the Muslim community but rather by a legislative act[15]. The case set a precedent on state control over educational institutions, reinforcing the state’s authority in university governance. While the case did not directly address the Governor’s role, it highlighted the legal framework governing university autonomy.
S P Gupta v Union of India
This case dealt with judicial appointments but has been cited in the context of institutional autonomy. The Supreme Court emphasized that institutions must function independently, free from undue influence by any government authority[16]. This principle is relevant to university governance, as it supports the argument that state universities should maintain autonomy from excessive executive control, including the Governor’s discretionary power as Chancellor.
Political Influence in University Administration
The role of the Governor as Chancellor of state universities has become a subject of political contention. While initially intended to ensure impartiality and academic integrity, recent trends indicate that state governments and Governors often find themselves at odds over appointments, policy decisions, and administrative control[17]. Several states have sought to limit the Governor’s influence in university matters, citing concerns over executive overreach and political interference[18].
Instances of Conflicts Between Governors and State Governments
Conflicts between Governors and state governments regarding university administration are frequent and revolve around key issues such as Vice-Chancellor appointments, policy implementation, and discretionary powers.
- Maharashtra: In 2021, a dispute arose over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Mumbai University. The state government accused the Governor of delaying the process to exert control over the institution, leading to administrative uncertainty and disruptions in academic activities[19].
- Kerala: The Kerala government has consistently opposed the Governor’s involvement in university governance, arguing that it undermines state autonomy over higher education[20].
- West Bengal: In 2022, West Bengal passed the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, replacing the Governor with the Chief Minister as Chancellor of state universities, arguing that education is a state subject and should not be influenced by central appointees[21].
Autonomy vs. Executive Control
University autonomy is a fundamental principle ensuring higher education institutions function independently, free from external political pressures[22]. However, excessive control—whether from the state government or the Governor—can compromise academic freedom and effective governance.
How Excessive Control Affects Academic Freedom and Decision-Making
Excessive interference undermines universities’ ability to function effectively, resulting in:
- Political Appointments: Vice-Chancellors may be chosen based on political affiliations rather than academic merit.[23] Funding and Resource Allocation: Universities not aligned with the ruling government’s ideology may face delays in funding approvals, affecting research and infrastructure development.[24]
- Curriculum Control: State governments altering university syllabi for political reasons affect academic integrity and research freedom.[25]
- The role of Vice-Chancellors and university senates is crucial for maintaining academic independence. However, political influence in these bodies can weaken their authority.
- Vice-Chancellors, responsible for academic and administrative efficiency, lose their independence if appointed based on political loyalty rather than qualifications.[26]
- University senates and governing councils should make policy decisions without external pressure to protect academic priorities[27].
Recent Legislative Changes and Their Impact
Several states have proposed and enacted laws to redefine the Governor’s role in university administration. These reforms aim to increase state control over universities while reducing the Governor’s discretionary influence[28].
- West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022
This Act replaced the Governor with the Chief Minister as Chancellor of state universities.[29]The West Bengal government justified this move by asserting that education is a state subject, and Governor’s involvement represents undue central influence. The amendment sparked debates on whether political executives should control universities, potentially increasing state interference in academic governance.[30]
Tamil Nadu and Kerala Proposing Similar Legislative Changes
Following West Bengal’s lead, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have proposed similar amendments: Transferring the power of appointing Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the state government. Reducing the discretionary powers of the Governor in university administration. Increasing the role of state higher education bodies in governance.
Tamil Nadu’s government argued that the Governor’s interference delays appointments and creates administrative inefficiencies[31]. Kerala has emphasized that state governments should manage universities without gubernatorial oversight
Debate Over the Need for Restructuring University Governance
The shift towards limiting the Governor’s powers in universities has led to a broader debate on higher education governance. The arguments from both sides include:
Arguments in Favor of Removing the Governor as Chancellor
- Reducing Political Bias: Governors, appointed by the central government, may not act in the best interest of the state’s education policies[32].
- Strengthening State Control: Since education falls under the Concurrent List, states should have greater autonomy in shaping policies[33].
- Faster Decision-Making: Reducing the Governor’s role can eliminate bureaucratic delays in Vice-Chancellor appointments and policy implementation[34].
Arguments Against Removing the Governor as Chancellor
- Ensuring Impartiality: The Governor serves as a neutral authority, preventing political interference in university administration[35].
- Maintaining Academic Standards: By keeping appointments outside political influence, universities can maintain academic credibility.[36]
- Preventing State Overreach: In some cases, state control has led to favouritism in faculty appointments and policy decisions, reducing academic excellence.[37]The debate over the Governor’s role in university administration reflects larger tensions between state autonomy and institutional independence. While states seek greater control over education policies, concerns about political interference and academic freedom persist.[38] The challenge lies in creating a balanced governance model that ensures universities operate efficiently, free from both gubernatorial and excessive state government interference.
Finding a Balance – Reform Proposals
The role of the Governor in state university administration has sparked extensive debates regarding governance models, autonomy, and political influence. In recent years, multiple states have sought to curtail the Governor’s powers as Chancellor, leading to concerns about the balance between institutional independence and state oversight. Reform proposals include strengthening independent regulatory bodies, depoliticizing Vice-Chancellor appointments, and adopting best practices from global higher education governance models.
One key alternative governance model involves strengthening the role of independent regulatory bodies like UGC to ensure uniform governance across universities while minimizing state interference[39]. The Constituent Assembly Debates emphasized the importance of educational institutions functioning independently of excessive government control[40]. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 also stresses the need for independent and autonomous governance in higher education institutions (National Education Policy 2020). Another approach is the decentralization of university administration[41], which removed the Governor as Chancellor. Decentralization can allow for greater participation by faculty, alumni, and students in decision-making, ensuring a governance model that is accountable but not politically driven.[42]
Ensuring impartiality in university appointments is another crucial reform. Currently, political interference in appointing Vice-Chancellors undermines institutional integrity. In leading case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of universities functioning independently of state control. Establishing neutral search committees, composed of academics and independent regulators, can help depoliticize the selection process.[43] Moreover, it is transferred the power to appoint Vice-Chancellors from the Governor to the Chief Minister, has raised concerns over excessive state control. To ensure fairness, the appointment process should be transparent, based on academic merit, and involve faculty councils, university senates, and independent experts[44].
Conclusion and Recommendations
The governance of state universities in India requires a careful balance between autonomy, accountability, and efficiency. With several states seeking to reduce the Governor’s role as Chancellor, concerns about increasing political interference in university affairs have emerged. While reforms aim to enhance local autonomy, they must ensure that universities retain their academic independence and are not subject to excessive state control. The key issues in university administration include political influence in Vice-Chancellor appointments, lack of transparency in governance structures, and the need for greater institutional autonomy. The Supreme Court recognized the need for universities to function independently to uphold academic excellence.[45] The National Education Policy 2020 also emphasizes the necessity of reducing political influence in academic governance (National Education Policy 2020).
To address these concerns, several recommendations can be considered. First, establishing clear legal provisions defining the Governor’s role in university administration can prevent conflicts between state governments and higher education institutions. The UGC and National Education Policy should explicitly define the Governor’s role, ensuring that it is more ceremonial than executive[46]. Second, strengthening university governing bodies with independent experts can enhance transparency and accountability. University Senates and Councils should have greater decision-making powers, and Vice-Chancellor appointments should be handled by neutral search committees, including academics, alumni, and legal experts[47]. Lastly, promoting academic freedom while maintaining administrative discipline is essential. Universities should have greater control over curriculum development and research funding, while institutional mechanisms should ensure accountability without compromising independence (National Education Policy 2020).
Future research should focus on the impact of state government control over universities and its implications for academic performance. Comparative studies on different governance models across Indian universities can provide further insights into best practices. Additionally, exploring global best practices in university governance can help identify adaptable solutions for India’s higher education system. By implementing these reforms, India can ensure that its universities maintain academic integrity while remaining free from undue political influence.
[1] Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX, 1949
[2] AIR 1968 SC 662
[3] MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis 2018)
[4] DK Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis 2019)
[5] (1993) 1 SCC 645
[6] (1975) 1 SCC 421
[7] Constitution of India 1950, art 154.
[8] Constitution of India 1950, art 162.
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 163.
[10] Constitution of India 1950, art 200
[11] University Grants Commission Act 1956.
[12] Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016.
[13] The West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act 2022
[14] Proposed Tamil Nadu Universities Act Amendments 2022
[15] [1968] AIR SC 662
[16] [1981] Supp SCC 87
[17] S P Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (OUP 2002)
[18] MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis 2018).
[19] D D Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis 2020).
[20] (1980) AIR SC 470
[21] ‘West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022’
[22] ibid 87
[23] [1968] AIR SC 662
[24] Ibid(n18)
[25] Ibid (n 1)
[26]ibid(n 19)
[27] Ibid(n21)
[28] [1952] AIR SC 75
[29] Ibid(n21)
[30]ibid( n 17).
[31] Ibid (n 19)
[32] Ibid
[33] Ibid (n 18)
[34] Ibid (n 21)
[35] Ibid (n 17)
[36] Ibid (n 16)
[37] Ibid (n 15)
[38] Ibid (n 1)
[39] Ibdi (n 18)
[40] Ibdi (n 1)
[41] Ibdi (n 14)
[42] Ibdi (n 19)
[43] Ibdi (n 15)
[44] Ibdi (n 18)
[45] Ibdi (n 2)
[46] Ibdi (n 3)
[47] Ibdi (n 4)
