It is strange that the Supreme Court has decided to form a selection committee to appoint Vice Chancellors in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, two reputed universities in Kerala, by silencing the University Grants Commission – UGC, which is controlling the entire higher education under the University system in Bharat. The anomalies between the University acts and the UGC guidelines, clubbed with the political interference, made appointment of Vice Chancellors in Kerala complicated in these days, which led to many litigations and no regular Vice Chancellors for almost all universities of the state for a considerable long period. Now, the Supreme Court may make that complexity multifold again by constituting a search -cum – selection committee headed by a non-academic. As the same court had made such VCs appointment as null and void earlier.
When the matter of temporary appointment of VCs in these universities reached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court verdict of July 14, the Supreme Court had directed that the temporary Vice Chancellor appointed in the Technological University be allowed to continue and that the appropriate steps may be taken by both the parties in tune with rule and consensus for the appointment of a regular Vice Chancellors in these universities as soon as possible. Based on this, the Kerala Governor, the Chancellor and the state government were asked to submit a list of eminent academics required for the search-cum-selection committee to the Supreme Court on August 13. The court stated it would select two academicians each from the list and the five-member search- cum – selection committee, which also included a representative of the UGC Chairman, was to prepare a panel of not less than three candidates from the applicants received on the basis of a notification issued by the Department of Higher Education, and to direct the Chancellor to appoint the most appropriate person from that panel as the Vice Chancellor. This proposal had the unanimous consent of both the parties. However, the Supreme Court’s strange verdict on the 18th overturned all of that.
Accordingly, the UGC was unilaterally removed from the search -cum- selection committee and a retired judge was appointed as the chairman of the search committee in the Supreme Court. Moreover, this judge has been given an honorarium of Rs 3 lakh for every day of proceedings of the search cum selection committee until the entire process is completed. The state government has to provide a suitable office with full secretarial assistance and accommodation at Thiruvananthapuram. All other arrangements should be provided according to his position in the past.
At present, the UGC is responsible for regulating all universities in Bharat and ensuring the quality of higher education. It deals with all matters such as the qualification of teachers, the functioning of the university, the structure of various courses, the appointment and promotion of teachers, the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, etc. The regulations made in 2010 and 2018 had created several administrative and legal crises in the field of higher education, and the UGC had made some interim interventions to resolve them. Following the new education policy of 2020, the UGC has prepared a draft of the new regulation in 2025 and submitted it for public comment. It has not yet been issued as an order, but it includes the functioning of universities in the field of higher education in the coming future, the appointment of teachers, their promotion, course development and the restructuring of universities. The proposals have been put forward in a way that gives priority to student-centeredness, achieving international standards and making the higher education sector in Bharat dynamic. The Supreme Court could have made a suggestion here, considering these guidelines.
The court intervened in this matter with good intention, otherwise it would have an adverse impact on the functioning of the said Universities and the interests of the student community. The court observed, “Ultimately, it is not a matter of mere exercise of powers or who would exercise such powers. It has something to do with the education of the students of this country. Both the Universities are of high repute. Why should the students suffer in this type of litigation?” But it does not seem that these measures will solve the problems of students and resolve the crisis in the university administration. It is clear to everyone that the court has not adopted a method that will move forward without hindrance in the future litigations on university laws and UGC guidelines. The Supreme Court’s suggestion as a temporary mechanism will become a regular mechanism in the future. The university administration will enter more legal entanglements and crises. Moreover, this formula is dead against the verdict of the same Supreme Court on KTU Vice Chancellor appointments, which was said “null and void ab initio” on the ground that the process of selection was against the guidelines of UGC. As the head of these selection committees was headed by non-academics, almost all universities of Kerala became universities without regular Vice Chancellors. The formula prepared for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the University of West Bengal, which was used for a one-time purpose, has been cited again in Kerala, in a similar situation. This creates the possibility of its repeated use in the future, according to the political environment in various states. There is also a big loop in this order by establishing the Chief Minister, a partisan politician, as the power center between the search committee and the Chancellor. Moreover, the verdict also states that since this formula is with the unanimous consent of both parties, neither party can express dissent. These are against the academic autonomy of higher education and an example of the judiciary’s overactivism.
It has been our position since the very beginning that the higher education sector, especially the university system, should function independently and fairly, beyond political interference at both the academic and administrative levels. The University Commission, headed by former President Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, has made this clear. In the early days, even the state university laws were enacted in accordance with this spirit. The excessive interest of political parties in the day-to-day activities of universities has led to the delusion in the university laws of the latter stage and the demand for amendments to the old university laws. Everyone should work together to make universities free from politics and raise academic standards. Otherwise, the list of Vice Chancellors formed by a committee headed by a person who is not an academic, and prioritised by the Chief Minister, who is also not an academic, poses a significant threat to academic freedom and higher education. Moreover, the Supreme Court creates the impression that it is taking the lead in the demand of the political leadership that the Chief Minister or the Minister of the Department can appoint anyone he likes as the Vice Chancellor. The academic community itself should come forward to overcome this crisis created by the Supreme Court. Guidelines should be put forward to save the universities not only of Kerala but all over Bharat from political interference.
Comments