Editorial: Education reforms ball in govt's court

The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Tamil Nadu government’s writ petitions against the State Governor withholding assent to Bills passed by the Assembly reiterated that the constitutional head of the state must act in accordance with the “settled conventions” of parliamentary democracy and clarified the limited options available to the governor regarding assent to bills under Article 200. The two-member bench pronounced unanimously and rather unequivocally that the delay in granting assent to bills was erroneous and illegal. Not only that, the court invoked its discretionary powers under Article 142 and declared that the ten bills were deemed to have received the assent when they were submitted the second time.

The bills mostly related to vesting the powers of state government and limiting the power of the Governor in matters relating to the appointment of vice-chancellors, the establishment of a university for Siddha medicine, appointments to the state public service commission, and also relating to signing remission orders for prisoners. With the end of the impasse, the Tamil Nadu government needs to swing into action with determination and extra vigour to make up for the lost time. The road ahead is undoubtedly paved with daunting challenges and is fraught with hurdles.

Though widely perceived to be politically coloured, there’s some merit in the Governor’s claims regarding the financial health, shortage of teaching staff and the erosion of university autonomy in general. A DT Next report had highlighted the challenges and problems faced by higher education in the State. Many educationists too have been voicing their concern in this regard. But, in the same breath, one must, in all fairness acknowledge the fact that Tamil Nadu has been one of the best performers when it comes to higher education. The government universities, like some of their central and private counterparts based in the state, have fared well according to the central government’s National Institutional Ranking Framework. But more needs to be done, and it cannot rest on its laurels. The state government should proactively fix the academic and general management and funding problems plaguing the universities and other institutions.

Now, with the power to appoint vice-chancellors, the state government should immediately expedite the process so that the new heads of universities could provide effective academic and executive leadership regarding courses and curriculum and overall administration and management. Work has reportedly come to a standstill due to the stalemate and an environment of uncertainty. The state government also has the onerous task of filling up the vacancies and ensuring their finances are in the pink even as the state government faces threats of freezing funds if it doesn’t toe the Central line on NEP and other issues.

It would not be entirely right if one were not to highlight the larger import of the Supreme Court verdict, especially in the context of the present Centre-state relations. The verdict, in a way, affirms the power of state legislatures to enact laws and the governors, especially in the states ruled by parties other than the one at the Centre, should play an enabling role by offering wise counsel. The governor does have discretionary powers but should exercise them judiciously and sparingly. The court advised governors, who are constitutional heads, to refrain from being political actors. Instead of being an inhibitor, they should catalyze resolving conflicts and work constructively with the democratically elected government.