 UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER SYSTEMS

(Universities - State Government / Central Government University Grants Commission State Council for Higher Education etc. Universities - Industry National Laboratories/]

7.0 UNIVERSITY - GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP

Universities in the country are established under Acts of Legislatures. There are at presnt 10 Universities established under Acts of Parliament; the remaining 150 or so of the Universities are all functioning under Acts of State Legislatures. The maintanance expenditure of the Universities is provided for by the respective governments; the Central Government in the case of Central Universities and the respective State Governments in the case of State Universities. Since all these Universities are creations of the legislatures, and most of them largely depend on funds from the public exchequer, the Universities have to remain accountable to their respective legislatures and Government. The concerned governments also have the responsibility to ensure that the grants provided by them are utilised properly and that the Universities which are funded by them function at a high level of efficiency. and effectiveness. THE ROLE SO DEVOLVING ON THE GOVERNMENTS IS THUS BROADLY OF A PARTNER IN ENABLING THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THEIR GOALS.

Universities, on the other hand, are vested with the responsibility to perform certain specific functions mentioned in the Acts of their incorporation. Performance of many of these functions requires exercise of academic judgement which lies exclusively within the domain of the Universities. In the performance of these functions autonomy is vital; the process of education cannot and should not be left to be influenced by external pulls and pressures. The exercise of this autonomy by the Universities has not been very smooth. In the first place, it is not always possible to draw a sharp distinction between issues which are academic and which are nonacademic. Decisions on nonacademic issues like authorising expenditure for specified purposes can and do influence academic decisions. Questions of autonomy have therefore, always been looked upon as a contentious issue between Universities and agencies which provide them funds. Secondly, the demands of accountability have often been considered by the Universities as an encumbrance; they feel that the accountability dimension is stretched too far often involving interference with their functional autonomy.

There have been innumerable instances in the recent past in which conflicts have surfaced between the Universities and the Governments; and between the concepts of autonomy and accountability. Their practical dimensions in the form of interference or intervention have debilitated the functioning of many Universities. For example,there have been amendments to legislations which prescribe that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor; that the final decision on affiliation of colleges vested no more in the Universities but in the concerned State Governments; that the power to give assent to Statutes shall vest not with the Chancellor, but with the State Government; that certain 'key functionaries like the Registrar, The Finance Officer, etc., are appointed not by the University but by the State Government and so on There have also been instances in which some State Governments have superceded the existing Acts of the Universities, promulgated Ordinances to replace the decision-making bodies with nominated bodies packed by their supporters; removed the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities in the State from their office, enacted legislations which provide that the Chief Minister shall be the Chancellor in place of the Governor and so on. Considerable attention has thus been focussed on the urgency for defining the relationship between the Universities and the Governments.

Another major issue of controversy has been the role of Governors as Chancellors of State Universities. It has been the practice to designate the Governor of the State as the Chancellor of all State Universities just as the President of India is designated as the Visitor of all the Central Universities. Although the Office of Visitor in the case of Central Universities, and Chancellor in the case of State Universities perform, by and large, the same functions, there is a qualitative difference in the manner in which the President and the Governor exercise the powers conferred on them.

IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AS THEIR VISITOR IS NOT AN OFFICER OF ANY OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES; HE FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE THE NORMAL DECISIONMAKING PROCESSES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITIES. The powers vested in the Visitor are the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, appointment of certain members on the Court, Executive Council, Finance Committee, Selection Committees etc., ordering enquiries and instituting inspections etc., giving or with-holding assent to the Statutes, arbitrating in disputes between Selection Committees and Executive Councils on the appointment of teachers; and annulment of any proceeding of the Universities which is not in conformity with the Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, etc. In exercising all these powers, the President of India as the Visitor of the Central Universities, is advised by the Minister in charge of Higher Education at the Centre. This clarity in

the manner of exercising the powers of the Visitor implies that in all decisions taken by the Visitor, the Government at the Centre plays the crucial role.

The position in respect of Governors functioning as Chancellors of the State Universities is however different. It is not a difference just of nomenclature. The most crucial difference is that while the Governor of a State, by virtue of his office, is the Chancellor of the University, he is also an Officer of the University. Most University legislations provide that the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and the members of the decision-making bodies are all constituted into a body corporate. The implication of these porovisions is that the Governor is statutorily a member of the University and is a participant in the internal decision- making processes. This position has given rise to the argument that while acting as Chancellors, the Governors are not performing any constitutional functions as Head of State, but are performing only specific statutory functions assigned to them by the Acts of incorporation of the Universities of which they are the Chancellors. There have been judicial pronouncements which uphold this view. This ambivalence about the manner in which the Governor of a State performs his functions as Chancellor has given rise to several unseemly controversies. There have been litigations; and there have been persistent and often acrimonious conflicts between the Governors and the State Governments. In some States, as a matter of convention, the Governors have been consulting the State Governments though they have generally taken the view that they were not obliged to do so. There are also instances where there has been complete understanding between the Governor and State Government whereby all University matters were exclusively dealt with by the Governor without consulting the Chief Minister or the Education Minister.

Many Governments seem to feel that they have no real say in the management of the Universities which have been established, and are being funded, by them. It is a manifestation of this feeling which prompted most of the amendments introduced in the University legislations, which were designed to carve out a specific role for the State Government in the administration and management of the Universities. In some cases, these powers were transferred from the office of the Chancellor to the State Governments (such as, approving the Statutes, appointment of Vice- Chancellor etc.,); in some others, the State Government assumed new powers (like affiliation of Colleges, appointment of Registrar, Finance Officer etc.).

Whatever be the cause for these amendments, the effect has been continuing confrontation, in which there were three major participants: the Governor as Chancellor, the State Government, and the University. This continuing confrontation has done considerable damage to the University

system and its effectiveness. it also performance, in many cases, an alibi for non-performance.

The Programme of Action has talked about the setting up of a State Council of Higher Education. UGC has also issued guidelines for the setting up of such Councils by the States Governments, which include suggestion: for their composition as well as their functions. What is envisaged is that in future the State Councils of Higher Education would perform the main function of coordination, setting up of standards, monitoring perspective planning, laying down guidelines for funding of Universities, and the like, in respect of Higher Education in the State. It is, therefore, necessary that the Governor of the State (who is to be designated as the Visitor under the recommendation being made by this Committee], should act not only on the aid and advice of the State Government but also seek the advice of the State Council for Higher Education with respect to all matters for which powers are given to him under the University enactment. Such a provision should be clearly incorporated in the enactments of the various Universities in the State and also in the Core Legislation which is being proposed for being framed by the Centre.

The State Government would exercise powers and functions through the State Council of Higher Education on which it would be adequately represented.Besides, it would have a decisive in finanical matters.The Universities would also be made accountable to the State Government by being required to submit a detailed Annual Report, a format for which could be prescribed, and which could also be laid before the legislature.

It is felt that this would provide greater clarity in relationship between the State Government, the Universities and the Governor and would end the ambivalence that exists today about the manner in which the Governor exercises the powers and performs the functions assigned to him under the University enactments.

In the case of Central Universities, this Committee has elsewhere recommended that there should be a Council for Central Universities, which would perform the same functions with respect to Central Universities as the State Councils for Higher Education are supposed to do for the State Universities. It is also common experience that because of the multifarious responsibilities that have to be performed by the Education Department of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the necessary supervision, monitoring and attention to the problems of Central Universities is not and cannot be given by the Department of Education. The Committee feels that the Department of Education would also feel happy if the responsibilities vis-a-vis the Central Universities are taken away from the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development and

entrusted to the proposed Council for Central Universities. The Visitor in case of Central Universities could then also act on the aid and advice of this Council for Central Universities.

Thus a common pattern for the State Universities and the Central Universities could be created.

IT SHOULD THEN BE OPEN TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A CHANCELLOR AS IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES. THE CHANCELLOR IN SUCH A CASE SHOULD BE THE CEREMONIAL HEAD OF THE UNIVERSITY, WHO SHOULD BE A SENIOR CITIZEN WHOSE ADVICE AND COUNSEL IS AVAILABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY. HE WILL NOT HAVE ANY EXECUTIVE POWERS OR RESPONSIBILIES. HE COULD BE APPOINTED BY THE VISITOR FROM AMONG A PANEL OF NAMES RECOMMENDED BY THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL / SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY.

We are of the view that it would not be necessary for the State Governments to make any other provisions to carve out any additional role for them. Accordingly, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO UNIVERSITY LEGISLATION WHICH INHIBIT THE UNIVERSITIES FROM THE EXERCISE OF THEIR ACADEMIC JUDGEMENT ON MATTERS LIKE AFFILIATION, APPOINTMENT OF KEY FUNCTIONERIES LIKE REGISTRAR, FINANCE OFFICER, ETC. SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN. In making these recommendations we are also assuming that THE UNIVERSITIES WILL EXECISE THE POWERS VESTED IN THEM WITH A FULL SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND WILL REMAIN ACCOUNTABLE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE LEGISLATURES. We are convinced that from this mutual respect for autonomy and the recognition of accoutability, there would emerge healthy conventions involving consultations at appropriate stages between the Governments and the Universities on issues which have implications for both. For example, conventions can be developed tinder which new colleges established are given affiliation by the Universities only after consultation with the concerned State Governments.

We further make the following recommendations with regard to Government - Universitiy relationship:

1. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PERFORM A BROAD SUPERVISORY ROLE THROUGH THE VISITOR / STATE COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE COUNCIL FOR CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES.

2. THE UNIVERSITIES SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE AUTONOMY IN THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE AND ACADEMIC MATTERS. THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE FINANCIAL AUTONOMY AS PER GUIDELINES APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENTS (FORMULATED IN CONSULTAION WITH UGC/ STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

3. THE STATUTE MAKING POWERS WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS SHALL REST WITH THE UNIVERSITIES. THE STATUTES THAT HAVE TO BE SENT FOR THE VISITOR'S ASSENT MAY BE ASSENTED TO BY THE VISITOR ON THE ADVICE OF THE UGC OR STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

4. THE POWERS OF AFFILIATION / DIS-AFFILIATION OF COLLEGES SHOULD REST WITH THE UNIVERSITY. THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL FOR GRANT PURPOSES MAY FOLLOW THE AFFILIATION GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY AND NOT VICE-VERSA.

5. TILL SUCH TIME AS THE STATE COUNCILS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ARE ESTABLISHED, THE COMMITTEE OF VICE-CHANCELLORS OF THE STATE UNVERSITIES SHOULD PERFORM THIS ROLE.

7.0.1 ROLE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The number of universities is growing day by day as they are being set up mostly by the State Governments and some times without any prior reference to the University Grants Commission. Also, the Acts of the universities do not provide for the universities to abide by the regulations and special directions issued by the UGC for the maintenance of standards.

With a view to ensure maintenance of standards, we make the following recommendations with regard to the, role of the Central Government:-

1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD COME FORWARD WITH A CENTRAL LEGISLATION, WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CO-ORIDINATION AND DETERMINATION OF STANDARDS IN INSTIUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE A STATUTORY STIPULATION REQUIRING THE INCORPORATION OF THE PROVISION IN THE ACTS OF ALL UNIVERSITIES THAT IT SHOULD BE OBLIGATORY FOR THEM TO FOLLOW AND ADHERE TO THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION FROM TIME TO TIME.

3. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT MAY BE AMENDED TO MAKE A PROVISION THAT ON FAILURE OF A UNIVERSITY TO COMPLY WITH ANY REGULATIONS OR SPECIAL DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION IT COULD INITIATE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DE-RECONGITION OF THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTS BOTH FROM THE STATE AND CENTRAL SOURCES.

4. NO NEW UNIVERSITY BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONCURRENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION. A PROVISION IN THIS REGARD BE MADE IN THE ACT OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION. As a consequence New legislations in respect of State Universities should be referred to the University Grants Commission prior to their enactment, rather than a university being declared, after establishment, fit for receiving central grants. ` 5. Appropriate steps be taken for the early establishment of State Councils of Higher Education for the purpose of coordination, planning and monitoring of University education at State levels.

7.0.2 ROLE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

The University Grants Commission owes its existence as an autonomous statutory body to the recommendatons mady be the University Education Commission of 1948-49. On November 3rd, 1952, the Government of India resolved to create a University Grants Commission which started functioning in 1953. The UGC Act was passed by the Parliament in 1956,