Governors as Chancellors, Do They Do More Harm Than Good in Indian Universities?
Why in News
The Supreme Court of India recently issued a strong censure of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for his prolonged delays and interventions in the functioning of state universities. Despite the apex court’s ruling against the Governor’s de-facto veto on ten university-related Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu legislature, friction continues between Governors and state governments. This ongoing tussle has highlighted the deeper issue of whether Governors should continue as Chancellors of state-run universities, a practice that has colonial roots but questionable relevance in today’s democratic and educational landscape.
Similar controversies have also erupted in Kerala, where Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar directed state universities to observe “Partition Horrors Day,” sparking criticism of ideological motives. His predecessor, Arif Mohammed Khan, was also frequently in conflict with the state government, particularly over university-related Bills. These repeated clashes across states underline a broader structural problem: Are Governors as Chancellors strengthening or weakening the autonomy and efficiency of India’s higher education system?
Introduction
Universities are considered the backbone of any nation’s intellectual, cultural, and technological progress. In India, state-run universities educate millions of students and produce the bulk of research in the country. Yet, their governance is increasingly being caught in political crossfire, especially due to the central role Governors play as Chancellors.
The position of the Governor as Chancellor is not accidental—it was inherited from colonial practices. During British rule, Governors acted as ceremonial heads of universities, primarily to lend prestige and ensure loyalty to colonial interests. After independence, however, India’s national leaders retained the practice, believing it necessary to safeguard national unity and prevent separatist tendencies in newly independent states.
Over time, however, the relevance of Governors as Chancellors has come under sharp scrutiny. With rising political polarization and conflicts between state governments and Governors, the university system has become a battleground, compromising academic autonomy and smooth administration.
Key Issues and Background
1. Supreme Court Ruling Against Governor’s Overreach
In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled against Governor R.N. Ravi for effectively stalling ten Bills relating to universities by withholding assent. The court clarified that Governors cannot indefinitely delay their response and must act within a reasonable timeframe. It also nullified the possibility of Presidential intervention based solely on a Governor’s recommendation.
Despite this ruling, Governor Ravi continued to resist by referring the Kalaignar University Bill to the President rather than giving assent, thereby prolonging the standoff.
2. Kerala Controversies
In Kerala, Governors have consistently locked horns with elected governments. The most recent controversy involved Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, who ordered universities to observe “Partition Horrors Day” on August 14. Critics viewed this directive as unnecessary politicization of academic institutions. His predecessor, Arif Mohammed Khan, had also stalled Bills and appointments, effectively vetoing decisions of the state legislature.
3. Colonial Legacy of the Chancellor System
The roots of this conflict lie in history. During colonial rule, British Governors were made Chancellors of universities to provide a veneer of authority, ensure autonomy from local interference, and strengthen imperial control. Even after independence, the practice was retained, partly due to fears of regional separatism.
Today, however, this colonial arrangement is increasingly outdated. State universities remain among the few institutions where Governors exercise direct power, often leading to tensions with elected state governments.
4. Draft UGC Regulations and NEP 2020
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has introduced draft regulations that aim to vest more power in Chancellors in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. At the same time, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 advocates for greater autonomy of higher education institutions, encouraging them to raise funds, manage resources independently, and operate with accountability. This contradiction between central regulations and the spirit of NEP is further fueling debates.
Specific Impacts or Effects
1. On University Autonomy
The direct intervention of Governors often undermines the autonomy of universities. Vice-Chancellor appointments, which should be based on academic merit and institutional needs, are frequently delayed or politicized due to Governor’s interference.
2. On State Governments
Governors, appointed by the Union Government, often act as political proxies, especially in states ruled by opposition parties. This creates a hostile environment where educational administration is used as a tool for political maneuvering rather than academic advancement.
3. On Students and Academic Growth
Students and faculty suffer the most from these tussles. Delayed appointments of Vice-Chancellors, stalled Bills, and ideological directives disrupt the academic calendar, lower morale, and reduce the quality of education and research output.
4. On Federalism
The disputes highlight deeper tensions in India’s federal structure. Education is a subject on the Concurrent List, meaning both the Centre and states can legislate. However, the Governor’s role often skews the balance in favor of the Union, undermining state autonomy.
5. On Public Trust in Universities
When universities are repeatedly in the headlines for political controversies instead of academic achievements, public trust erodes. This damages the reputation of India’s higher education system globally.
Challenges and the Way Forward
1. Conflict Between State and Centre
As long as Governors act as central appointees with strong political affiliations, conflicts with state governments are inevitable. A neutral mechanism is needed to prevent misuse of the Governor’s office in academic matters.
2. Colonial Legacy vs. Modern Needs
Retaining the Governor as Chancellor is a relic of the past. Modern universities require professional leadership with managerial and academic expertise, not political figures with ideological agendas.
3. Regulatory Contradictions
While NEP 2020 promotes autonomy, draft UGC rules strengthen the Chancellor’s powers. Reconciling these contradictions is necessary to avoid confusion and turf wars.
4. Redefining the Role of University Heads
University leaders today must act not only as academic administrators but also as fundraisers, strategists, and managers. Governors, who often lack experience in higher education management, are ill-suited for this role.
5. Possible Solutions
-
States could amend laws to remove Governors as Chancellors and replace them with eminent academicians or professionals.
-
A transparent system of Vice-Chancellor appointments, overseen by independent bodies, could minimize political interference.
-
The UGC and NEP guidelines must align to promote autonomy and academic freedom.
Conclusion
The continuing conflicts in Tamil Nadu and Kerala reveal that the system of Governors serving as Chancellors has become more of a liability than an asset. What began as a colonial mechanism to maintain imperial prestige and control has now evolved into a flashpoint of political confrontation, undermining the very purpose of universities.
For India to achieve its educational ambitions under the National Education Policy 2020 and to compete globally, its universities must be allowed to function with independence, professionalism, and vision. Governors, as political appointees, cannot fulfill this role effectively. Replacing them with academic or professional leaders as Chancellors is not just desirable but essential for the future of higher education in India.
5 Questions and Answers
Q1. Why did the Supreme Court censure the Tamil Nadu Governor recently?
A1. The Court censured Governor R.N. Ravi for stalling ten Bills related to universities by not granting assent. It ruled that Governors must respond within reasonable timelines and cannot exercise a de-facto veto.
Q2. What colonial legacy influences the role of Governors as Chancellors?
A2. During British rule, Governors were made Chancellors of universities to lend colonial prestige and control. This legacy was retained after independence but has become outdated in modern times.
Q3. How do Governors’ interventions affect universities?
A3. Such interventions delay Vice-Chancellor appointments, disrupt academic processes, politicize universities, and undermine autonomy, ultimately harming students and faculty.
Q4. What contradiction exists between UGC draft regulations and NEP 2020?
A4. While draft UGC rules strengthen the Chancellor’s role (i.e., Governors) in appointments, NEP 2020 emphasizes greater autonomy for universities, creating a conflict in governance philosophy.
Q5. What reforms are being suggested to resolve this issue?
A5. Reforms include removing Governors as Chancellors, appointing eminent academicians or professionals instead, ensuring transparent Vice-Chancellor selection, and aligning UGC regulations with NEP 2020 principles.
