Governor vs State: Tug of War over University Appointments

Why in the News?

1. The Kerala Governor, submitted to the Supreme Court that the Chief Minister has no role in appointing Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) of State universities such as A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University and Digital University Kerala.
2. This submission highlights the growing conflict between Governors and elected State governments, especially in opposition-ruled States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
3. The issue also intersects with the evolving University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations that seek to redefine the role of State governments in V-C appointments.

Key Highlights

1. Governor’s Submission to the Court
   1. The Governor argued that, as per the 2018 UGC regulations, members of search-cum-selection committees must be eminent persons not connected with the university or its colleges.
   2. Hence, the Chief Minister, being directly connected with all State universities, should have no role in the appointment process.
2. Draft UGC Regulations, 2025
   1. The upcoming 2025 UGC Regulations propose to remove the role of State governments entirely in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors.
   2. The power of appointing V-Cs would rest solely with the Chancellor (who is usually the Governor).
   3. The rationale behind this change is to ensure uniformity across universities in India and reduce political interference at the State level.
   4. However, this centralisation has been criticised for undermining State autonomy in higher education, since universities are also subjects of State legislatures under the Constitution.
3. Historical Role of Governors
   1. Governors were originally colonial-era instruments retained in independent India.
   2. Over time, central and State legislations restricted their discretionary powers, but they have often acted as political agents of the ruling party at the Centre.
4. Governors as Chancellors of Universities
   1. Traditionally, Governors have been designated as Chancellors to maintain independence and provide non-partisan oversight in higher education.
   2. However, this role itself is rooted in State legislation, and Governors owe this position to laws passed by State governments.
5. Emerging State Pushback
   1. States like Punjab and West Bengal have passed laws replacing the Governor with the Chief Minister as Chancellor.
   2. This reflects a broader trend of States attempting to reclaim autonomy in higher education governance and reduce political confrontation with Governors.
6. Broader Concerns in University Governance
   1. University heads ideally should be distinguished academicians with administrative capacity, not political appointees.
   2. The ongoing tussle risks undermining academic autonomy, creating uncertainty in higher education management.

Constitutional Position of Governors

1. Articles 153–167 (Part VI, Indian Constitution): Provide for the office of the Governor in each State.
2. Article 153: There shall be a Governor for each State (one Governor can be appointed for two or more States).
3. Appointment (Article 155): Appointed by the President of India.
4. Tenure (Article 156): Holds office during the pleasure of the President; normal tenure is five years.
5. Qualifications (Article 157): Must be a citizen of India and at least 35 years of age.
6. Conditions of Office (Article 158): Cannot be a member of Parliament or State Legislature; cannot hold an office of profit.
7. Powers of Governor:
   1. Executive Powers (Articles 154–162): Executive power of the State is vested in the Governor.
   2. Legislative Powers (Articles 163–174): Summons, prorogues, and dissolves the State legislature; addresses and sends messages; gives assent to Bills; may reserve certain Bills for the President.
   3. Judicial Powers: Appoints judges of district courts.
   4. Discretionary Powers (Article 163): Can act at their own discretion in certain matters (e.g., appointment of CM in a hung assembly, sending reports to President under Article 356).
8. Governor as Chancellor of State Universities:
   1. Not a constitutional role.
   2. Derived from State university Acts that make Governors ex-officio Chancellors.
   3. Hence, the State legislature can amend such Acts to replace the Governor with another authority (e.g., Chief Minister).

Implications

1. For Federalism
   1. The issue deepens Centre–State friction, as Governors are perceived as agents of the Union government interfering in State autonomy.
2. For Higher Education
   1. Prolonged tussles delay crucial appointments of Vice-Chancellors, weakening institutional leadership and academic progress.
3. For Constitutional Morality
   1. Frequent conflicts between Governors and State governments raise questions about the spirit of cooperative federalism envisioned in the Constitution.
4. For UGC Reforms
   1. Draft UGC Regulations, 2025 could centralise power further, undermining the federal character of higher education governance.
5. For Democratic Accountability
   1. If Governors hold exclusive power in V-C appointments, they remain unelected and unaccountable, unlike Chief Ministers who derive authority directly from the people.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The Kerala Governor’s submission before the Supreme Court is part of a wider debate on the role of Governors in higher education. While Governors were historically seen as neutral heads of universities, their increasing political involvement has made this arrangement contentious. Moving forward, the challenge lies in balancing State autonomy with national academic standards, ensuring that Vice-Chancellor appointments are merit-based, transparent, and shielded from political tussles. Strengthening cooperative federalism and academic independence must remain the guiding principles in this reform.