Kerala passes bill, but will it be able to remove Governor as chancellor of state-run universities?

Throughout the discussion held on the University Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2022, they accused him of being a tool of the BJP-RSS dispensation at the Centre.

However, UDF MLAs boycotted the proceedings just before the bill was put to vote, saying that in its present form, it would cause “dangerous Marxitisation” of the higher education sector of Kerala, and that the ruling formation would commit more nepotism using the bill as a cover.

The Assembly was adjourned sine die after passing the bill, and Law Minister P Rajeev said the bill would soon be forwarded to the Governor for his mandatory approval.

Raj Bhavan sources confirmed that the Governor would either sit on the bill indefinitely without giving his assent or forward it to the President for consideration.

There are not many chances of the President acting fast on bills forwarded by state governors following altercations with the state governments.

The President’s office can also withhold its consent on the bill indefinitely.

Governor stands ground

Equipped with a recent verdict of the Kerala High Court that no judicial institution could set a time frame for the Governor to sign and approve any bill, Khan hopes the bill will not cause any hindrance to his continuation as Chancellor of all the state-run universities.

He has also quoted certain University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines to justify his decision to continue as Chancellor of the universities.

In the meantime, his decision to sit indefinitely on the bill is expected to further worsen his relationship with the state government.

In a related development, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his Cabinet colleagues decided to boycott a Christmas feast arranged by the Governor at Raj Bhavan on Wednesday.

Opposition leader VD Satheesan also declared that he would stay away from the function to convey the Opposition’s stand against some of the actions of the Governor.

Also read: LDF urges Governor to end animosity toward elected government

The discussion on the bill

Throughout the discussion over the bill, legislators cutting across political affiliations came down heavily on Khan, accusing him of being a proxy of the Sangh Parivar and hellbent on saffronising the higher-education sector.

They also said most of the actions Khan were meant to please his BJP-RSS masters in Delhi.

Claiming that the bill in its present form would augment nepotism and Marxist highhandedness in the university affairs, Satheesan suggested an amendment to it.

He said there must be a single chancellor to all state-run universities except the Law University, where the Kerala High Court Chief Justice holds the position of Chancellor.

However, the ruling front dismissed the amendment, saying it wanted separate chancellors for all universities.

While boycotting the voting phase, the Opposition termed the move to appoint different chancellors as a part of an organised bid to bring in Marxist leaders and those close to the ruling front at the helm of universities.

Opposition deputy leader PK Kunhalikutty accused the LDF of attempting to parade a set of chancellors as if lining up caparisoned elephants for Thrissur Pooram.

The government also rejected the Opposition’s amendment of making either a retired Chief Justice of Kerala High Court or a retired judge of the Supreme Court the Chancellor of state-run universities.

Satheesan argued that there would be a protocol crisis if those below the rank of a judge held the post.

“The new bill retains the chief minister as pro vice-chancellor of the universities. So anyone above him in the universities must have a certain constitutional stature,” he argued.

The passed bill, in fact, stipulates that the Chancellor should be an academician of high repute or a person of eminence in any of the fields of science, including agriculture and veterinary science, technology, medicine, social science, humanities, literature, art, culture, law, or public administration.

However, the government accepted the demand of the Opposition to constitute a three-member selection committee comprising the chief minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Assembly speaker to choose the Chancellor.

In the meantime, the bill remains silent on the other procedures in the selection process for the Chancellor.

Opposition adds to equation 

Replying to discussions, Rajeev said that the government was not maintaining any preconceived notions about the number of chancellors.

“Though the bill empowers the government to appoint different Chancellors for different universities, it does not mean the government intends to appoint one for each. It is only that all universities will have a Chancellor; it does not mean all will have separate ones,” the state law minister explained.

Former higher education minister and an CPI(M)-backed independent MLA KT Jaleel suggested a single Chancellor for the nine universities under the Higher Education Department and separate chancellors for universities under other departments like Health, Fisheries, IT, and Culture.

The government has removed Khan from the Chancellor position of the Kerala Kalamandalam Deemed University and appointed eminent danseuse Mallika Sarabhai in that place.

The Kalamandalam comes under the Culture Department, and its statutes permit the government to appoint its Chancellor without waiting for any new law.

Responding to the Opposition’s demand for preferring retired judges to the post of Chancellor, Rajeev said the government preferred people of eminence who excelled in their chosen fields.

The minister added that the UDF’s argument of a protocol crisis would not be solved even if its amendment was accepted.

“Retired judges are not included in the order of precedence laid down by the Constitution. The chief minister will anyway stand above even a retired Chief Justice,” he said.

In the case of the three-member selection committee, the UDF initially wanted the High Court Chief Justice as one of the members.

But they withdrew that demand when Rajeev pointed out the possibility of people who lost in the race to the chancellor post approaching the high court against the decision. He asked how the court could act against a committee where the Chief Justice was a member.

Then a compromise formula emerged, with the speaker emerging as the committee’s third member.