Editorial 1: ​​Ceremonial heads

Context

Governors serving as Chancellors often hinder rather than help the functioning of universities.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly censured Governors for overstepping their constitutional authority, particularly in State-run universities. Despite judicial directives, Governors continue to exercise de-facto vetoes and influence legislation, often creating political and ideological tensions. These clashes highlight the colonial legacy of the Governor’s office and raise questions about the need for university autonomy in modern India.

Supreme Court vs Governor Interventions

• In April, the Supreme Court of India strongly censured Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, but it had little effect on Governors’ ongoing confrontations with State governments.
• The Court ruled against the Governor exercising a de-facto veto on 10 Bills concerning universities passed by the State legislature.
• It set specific timelines for Governors to respond to Bills.
• The Court declared any Presidential intervention based on a Governor’s recommendation as infructuous.
• Example: Last week, Governor Ravi referred the Kalaignar University Bill to the President instead of granting assent.
• In Kerala, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar caused controversy by directing universities to observe a ‘Partition horrors day’ on August 14, 2025, sparking criticism over potential ideological motives.
• Arlekar’s predecessor, Arif Mohammed Khan, also clashed with the government, delaying or effectively vetoing Bills, particularly those related to universities.
• Despite the Court’s rulings, the President has challenged the judicial line through references.

Universities as a Political Battleground

• State-owned universities are key areas of conflict between Governors and State governments.
• Governors have direct authority over universities, giving them leverage in political disputes.
• Historically, the Governor’s office was a colonial mechanism to control provinces ruled by Indian parties.
• British Governors acted as ceremonial heads (Chancellors) of universities to ensure prestige, autonomy, and colonial influence.
• Post-independence leaders retained Governors as central appointees to guard against separatist tendencies.
• Many State legislations maintained Governors as Chancellors to preserve this colonial aura.
• Even in Tamil Nadu, a Bill aimed at reducing Governors’ role in Vice-Chancellor appointments did not remove their Chancellor position.
• In Kerala and Tamil Nadu, Governors often serve as central proxies with political and ideological agendas.

Towards University Autonomy

• Draft UGC regulations propose removing State government influence in Vice-Chancellor selection, giving all power to the Chancellor.
• The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 emphasizes university autonomy, expecting institutions to:
  • Raise funds independently
  • Be accountable for expenditures
  • Have leaders serve as academic heads, administrators, fundraisers, and managers
• The trend suggests it may be practical to appoint professional leaders rather than Governors as ceremonial and executive heads of universities.

Conclusion

The recurring conflicts between Governors and State governments underscore the tension between constitutional authority and political agendas. Moving towards university autonomy, as envisioned in the NEP 2020 and draft UGC regulations, could ensure institutions are managed by professionals rather than political appointees. Strengthening accountability, independence, and academic leadership is essential for India’s higher education system to thrive.