West Bengal government’s decision to make Chief Minister the Chancellor of state-run universitiesrather than the governor, appears to be the result of a severely strained relationship. Between Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, They often differ on issues related to the appointment of vice-chancellors and the functioning of universities. Mr. Dhankhar had alleged that the Vice-Chancellors were appointed without the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, the appointing authority; On some occasions, the Vice-Chancellor did not come for the meeting with the Governor-Vice-Chancellor. Friction has also arisen elsewhere. Tamil Nadu recently passed bills to empower the state government to appoint vice-chancellors instead of chancellors. It also passed a separate bill to establish a new university for alternative systems of medicine, with the Chief Minister as its Vice-Chancellor. The bills have not yet received the assent of the governor. In Kerala, there is a controversy of a different kind, with Governor Arif Mohammad Khan asking the chief minister to take over the role of chancellor in the light of alleged political interference in the functioning of universities. These developments underscore that the granting of statutory roles to governors can be a source of friction between elected governance and governors who are seen as agents of the Centre.
The basic purpose of making governors as chancellors and vesting certain statutory powers on them was to protect the universities from political influence. Even in the 1980s, as noted by the Justice RS Sarkaria Commission, the use of discretion in certain university appointments by some governors came under criticism. It recognized the distinction between the constitutional role of the Governor and the statutory role played by the Chancellor, and also underlined that the Chancellor is not bound to take the advice of the government. However, it said there was a clear advantage in the governor consulting the chief minister or the minister concerned. Decades later, the Justice MM Punchhi Commission, which probed Centre-State relations, was far ahead in its 2010 report. Noting that the Governor “should not be burdened with positions and powers … which may expose the office to controversies or public criticism”, it advised against conferring statutory powers to the Governor. The practice of making the Governor the Chancellor of the universities seemed to have lost its relevance. To a large extent, it noted the potential for friction: “… ministers would naturally be interested in regulating university education, and see no need to maintain a position where there would be a conflict of functions and powers.” The time has come for all the states to reconsider making the governor as chancellor. However, they should also find alternative means of protecting the autonomy of the university so that the ruling parties do not exert undue influence on the functioning of the universities.