Recently, the Governor’s role as Chancellor of State universities has become politicized, eroding autonomy and causing governance issues, particularly in Opposition-led States.

Background of Governor’s Role

• Colonial Origins The British established the first three universities in 1857 in  Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, appointing the Governors of the respective presidencies as their ex-officio Chancellors.
• Objective: The primary goal was to maintain direct control over universities, restricting their autonomy rather than promoting it.
• Adoption Without Reassessment: After Independence, the colonial model of the Governor as Chancellor was adopted for State universities without considering its relevance in a democratic and federal context. 
  • This decision was made despite the absence of any constitutional provision assigning this role to the Governor.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Key Responsibilities of Governors as Chancellors

• Appointment of Vice-Chancellors: The Governor, as Chancellor, holds the authority to appoint university heads.
• Nominating Syndicate Members: Governors nominate members to key university bodies, such as the syndicate or executive council.
• Approval of University Statutes: They approve statutes and regulations, which govern the functioning of universities.
• Convocations: Presiding over convocations.

Challenges of the Current System

• Dominance of the Congress Party: During this period, the Congress party’s dominance at both the Centre and State levels ensured that Governors remained largely ceremonial figures. 
  • Chief Ministers wielded real power, leaving little room for Governors to interfere in university affairs.
• Continuity of Colonial Provisions: There was no significant political impetus to amend the colonial-era role of Governors as Chancellors, as their function was perceived as neutral and non-contentious.
• Politicisation of Governor’s role: The political landscape changed after 1967, with several States being governed by parties outside the ruling coalition at the Centre.
  • Governors transitioned from neutral constitutional functionaries to political instruments of the Central government.
• Conflicting Authorities: Governors began asserting control over university matters, leading to frequent clashes with opposition-led State governments.
  •  Efforts to amend university laws to change the Chancellor’s role faced resistance, as Governors either:
  • Delayed approvals of amendments.
  • Referred them to the President, further stalling reforms.
• Lack of Legislative Oversight: Unlike the President, the Governor’s actions as Chancellor are not subject to scrutiny by the State Legislature. This flaw is rooted in the continuation of colonial-era practices, which were designed to centralize control.
• Conflicts in Opposition-Ruled States: Governors’ unilateral actions often lead to administrative conflicts, particularly when the State government is led by a party opposed to the ruling coalition at the Centre.
• Lack of Accountability: While State governments fund universities, Governors wield substantial powers without corresponding accountability.
• Conflicting Demands: University leadership often finds itself navigating between the authority of the Governor and the State government, leading to administrative complexities.
• Delays in Appointments: Disagreements between Governors and State governments, particularly in Opposition-ruled States, result in delays in appointing Vice-Chancellors.
• Impact on University Operations: Delayed decisions affect:
  • Staff recruitment.
  • Implementation of university projects.
  • Awarding of degrees.
• Lack of Academic Expertise: Many Governors lack the necessary qualifications or experience to guide educational institutions effectively. Their decisions often rely on limited and non-transparent advice, leading to questionable outcomes.
• Political Interference: Instead of insulating universities from politics, some Governors exacerbate political interference by prioritizing the Centre’s political agenda over the universities’ autonomy.
• Violation of Federal Principles: Governors, as appointees of the Centre, wield control over State-funded universities, undermining the principle of federalism. This compromises the autonomy of State governments in managing their educational institutions.

Criticism of Politicisation of Governor’s Role

• First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966–77): The Commission criticised the growing politicisation of the Governor’s office. 
  • It highlighted the appointment of defeated politicians to the position, which eroded the dignity and neutrality of the office.
• Findings of the Sarkaria Commission (1983–88): The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations revealed that over 60% of Governors had been active politicians, many of them immediately before their appointment. 
  • The quality of appointments to the Governor’s office declined steeply after the Nehru era, undermining its credibility.
• Recent Study: Professor Ashok Pankaj’s Study (1950–2015) found: 
  • 52% of Governors were politicians.
  • 26% were retired bureaucrats.
  • Only 22% hailed from academia, the judiciary, or the armed forces.
  • This trend highlighted the increasing preference for appointing Governors based on political loyalty, further exacerbating misuse of the office.

Check Out UPSC Modules From PW Store

Powers of Governors

• As Governor (Constitutional Role): Bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers as per Article 163(1) of the Constitution.
• As Chancellor (Statutory Role): Powers are conferred by State University laws, allowing the Governor to act independently unless the statute mandates ministerial advice.
• Discretionary Role as Chancellor: The Supreme Court has upheld that Governors can exercise discretion in university matters, such as:
  • Appointing Vice-Chancellors.
  • Nominating members to university bodies.
  • Approving subordinate legislation under university laws
• Bypassing Ministerial Advice: Governors have used their discretionary powers to bypass the State’s Council of Ministers in critical decisions, particularly in Opposition-ruled States. 
  • This practice has often led to conflicts between Governors and State governments

Governor vs. President in University Governance

• Role of the President as Visitor: The President serves as the Visitor of Central Universities under central university laws. The President 
  • Operates through the Ministry of Education.
  • Consults the Ministry for appointments, nominations, and approval of statutes.
  • Delegated legislation (statutes, ordinances, and regulations) must be laid before Parliament, ensuring legislative oversight.
• Role of the Governor as Chancellor: Acts unilaterally in matters related to State universities. Often bypasses the State’s Ministry of Higher Education entirely.
  • Delegated legislation in State universities (statutes, ordinances, and regulations) is not mandated to be laid before the State Legislature, leading to a lack of oversight.

Key Recommendations by Various Commissions

• Rajamannar Committee (1969-71): Appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu to examine Centre-State relations. The Governor’s statutory functions as Chancellor should be included within the scope of ‘functions’ under Article 163(1). 
  • The Governor should perform his role as Chancellor on the advice of the State government. The Supreme Court has not upheld this interpretation.
• Sarkaria Commission (1983-88): Centre-State relations and the statutory nature of the Governor’s role as Chancellor. 
  • The Governor’s role as Chancellor is statutory, not constitutional, and is defined by State laws. 
  • Governors should consult with Chief Ministers while retaining independent judgment in university matters.
• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000-02): The Governor’s role should be redefined to ensure political neutrality.
  • A clearer definition of the Chancellor’s functions is necessary to reduce ambiguity. The Governor’s role should be supportive, not authoritative, to promote greater university autonomy.
• M.M. Punchhi Commission (2007-10): Strengthening Centre-State relations and redefining the Governor’s role. 
  • The Governor should focus on constitutional responsibilities, avoiding statutory roles like that of Chancellor to maintain the dignity of the office.
  • States should appoint eminent academics or experts as Chancellors to ensure academic independence and minimize conflicts.

Reform Models

• Global Examples: 
  • United Kingdom (UK): Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh elect ceremonial Chancellors with no executive powers.
  • Canada and Australia: Universities such as McGill (Canada) and Melbourne (Australia) appoint ceremonial Chancellors through Executive Councils or Boards of Governors, ensuring transparent processes.
• Ceremonial Chancellor Removes the discretionary powers of the Governor, mandating that they act on the advice of the State Council of Ministers. 
  • Examples: Gujarat (1978), Karnataka (2000), Maharashtra (2021): Adopted variations of this approach to limit the Governor’s executive role.
• Chief Minister as Chancellor: Transfers the role of Chancellor to the Chief Minister to strengthen accountability to the State government. Critics argue that a powerful political figure like the Chief Minister does not suit the ceremonial nature of the role. 
  • West Bengal and Punjab (2023): Passed Bills to adopt this system; Presidential assent is pending. 
  • Tamil Nadu (2022): Passed a Bill substituting ‘Government’ for ‘Chancellor’; awaiting Presidential assent.
• State-Appointed Chancellor: The State government appoints a ceremonial Chancellor, typically an eminent academician or public figure, excluding politicians.
  • Examples: Telangana (2015): Successfully implemented this model. 
  • Kerala (2022): Passed a Bill specifying that the appointee must be a distinguished academician or public figure; awaiting Presidential assent.
  • The M.M. Punchhi Commission advocated this model as the most practical for India.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Way Forward

• Accountability to State Governments;: Universities should be directly accountable to elected State governments, ensuring decisions align with local priorities and public interests.
• Minimizing Political Interference: Reforms must reduce the risk of political bias in university administration by excluding Governors or politically motivated individuals from decision-making roles.
• Promoting Institutional Self-Governance: Universities must have the autonomy to make decisions about academic and administrative matters without undue external influence
• Successful Implementation: States like Gujarat (1978), Karnataka (2000), Telangana (2015), and Maharashtra (2021) have successfully redefined the Governor’s role, reducing discretionary powers and aligning university governance with democratic principles.

Conclusion

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.

Ready to boost your UPSC 2025 preparation? Join PW’s UPSC online courses today!

DOWNLOAD PDF