Opinion Governors as chancellors: The points of conflict

In the initial years of our Republic, there were hardly any conflicts between governors as chancellors and state governments. The Congress was in power at the national and state level. The President, bound by the Prime Minister’s advice, appointed individuals closely linked to the party as governors.

Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has locked horns with the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government over the running of state universities (File Photo)

Chakshu Roy

August 28, 2022 04:10 AM IST First published on: Aug 28, 2022 at 04:10 AM IST

State governments and governors have been at loggerheads for half a century. The disagreement is about whether a governor appointed by the Union government has an active role in the state’s administration when the people have given the governance mandate to a popularly elected government.

This contentious issue raises its head in different ways. For example, what should be the involvement of the governor in the working of universities where they are chancellors? Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has locked horns with the CPM-led state government regarding “nepotism” in employment in state universities. He recently referred to the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University, Gopinath Ravindran, as a “criminal” and a cadre of the ruling party.

Also Read | CPM reframes tussle with Kerala Governor as Sangh vs it

Our colonial past connects governors and universities. Before 1845, there were multiple colleges where students received higher education in the British-administered areas. These colleges were independent of each other, and their curriculum differed. That year, the Bengal Council of Education championed the setting up of a university that had the power to grant degrees in arts, science, law, medicine and civil engineering. The council suggested that the government model the university along the lines of the University of London, an examination and degree-awarding institution. Nine years later, the government in India accepted this proposal with some modifications.

The ‘Despatch of 1854 on the General Education in India’ suggested the creation of universities in India. It recommended that the universities consist of a chancellor, vice-chancellor and fellows, who would constitute a senate. It stated further that the ‘offices of chancellor and vice-chancellor will naturally be filled by persons of high station, who have shown an interest in the cause of education…’. Acting on this suggestion, the Governor General decided that he would be the chancellor of the university at Calcutta, and the governors for Bombay and Madras would be the chancellors for the universities in the two presidency towns. These three universities were set up in 1857 by separate laws passed by the Legislative Council of India.

After Independence, a committee headed by Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan observed that the practice of the governor being a chancellor had worked well in states with only one university. The commission left it to the states to decide whether they wanted the governor to be the chancellor, especially if the state had multiple universities. States opted to stick to the status quo, and while enacting legislation for universities in their states, they made the governor their chancellor.

Express view | Arif Mohammed Khan’s outburst against Irfan Habib lowers dignity of his office, dents his own record and reputation

In the initial years of our Republic, there were hardly any conflicts between governors as chancellors and state governments. The Congress was in power at the national and state level. The President, bound by the Prime Minister’s advice, appointed individuals closely linked to the party as governors. As a result, the Congress could internally resolve any disagreements between governors and their governments. But by the 1960s, cracks had started developing. For example, Dr Zakir Hussain was the Governor of Bihar before being elected Vice-President. He reappointed the Vice-Chancellor of Patna University for a second term against the advice of the Chief Minister. Academics point out that after this, the Bihar government contemplated amending the state law to require the governor chancellor to appoint a vice-chancellor on the advice of the chief minister.

After the fourth general election in 1967, the Congress lost power in multiple states. The conflicts between governors and state governments started coming out in the open. The state governments believed that the governor had a constitutional duty to act on the advice of the council of ministers. The governors, on the other hand, thought that since their appointment as chancellor of a university was through legislative enactment, they had the right to intervene in the university’s functioning and their position as chancellor was distinct from their role as a governor. A stance supported by the Supreme Court.

Also Read | Gopinath Ravindran: The academic whom Kerala Governor called ‘criminal’

Two commissions on Centre-state relations appointed by the Government of India have suggested that state legislatures should not appoint governors as chancellors. In 2010, the Punchi commission stated that when governors act as chancellors, it opens their office to controversies and public criticism.

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

The conflict between governors in their role as chancellors has now reached a stage where state governments have started bringing laws curbing the gubernatorial powers regarding state universities. For example, earlier this year, the West Bengal Legislature passed a law making the Chief Minister the chancellor of 31 state universities. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have also passed laws limiting the governor’s role in university affairs, and the Kerala Legislature is also mulling such a measure.

The writer is head of outreach, PRS Legislative Research