Thiruvananthapuram: The ruling and opposition benches combined to strip Governor Arif Mohammed Khan of his chancellorship of universities in the Assembly on Tuesday.
Yet, the UDF felt that the Bill, the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, fell woefully short of addressing its chief concern, the 'Marxistisation' of higher education in Kerala. In protest, the UDF members boycotted proceedings before the Bill was put to vote.
Even then, the discussion on the Bill was a triumph for both the LDF and the UDF.
The government could claim credit for bringing the Opposition around to its view that the Governor, acting at the behest of the Sangh Parivar, was engaged in the 'saffronisation' of higher education in Kerala.
The UDF, though it boycotted the voting, could take heart in the fact that it could plug at least some loopholes in the proposed Bill. The Congress also scored a political point as its arguments were perfectly in sync with its partner, the Muslim League.
The UDF did spring a surprise by placing on the table three amendments to the Bill, changes it felt would tone down the arbitrariness inherent in the proposed Bill. One, there should be only one Chancellor for all the universities in Kerala, except the Law University where the Chief Justice of Kerala is the Chancellor.
This proposal is similar to the arrangement that exists now with the Governor as the Chancellor of all the universities.
The proposed Bill gave the impression that the government wanted a different chancellor for all 14 universities. The prospect of multiple chancellors was ridiculed by UDF leaders. "Should we have chancellors like we line up elephants for Thrissur Pooram," Muslim League leader P K Kunhalikutty said.
Two, this lone Chancellor should either be a retired Chief Justice of Kerala or a retired judge of the Supreme Court. The UDF argument was that anyone else would have precipitated a protocol crisis. "Since the Chief Minister was only the Pro-Chancellor, anyone holding a position above him should have a certain constitutional stature," was the argument.
The tabled Bill states 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.
Three, there should be a three-member selection committee made up of the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of Kerala to pick the Chancellor.
The Bill is conspicuously silent on the procedure for selecting the Chancellor.
The government was vague about the first amendment, rejected the second one and accepted the third with a minor but decisive change.
Law minister P Rajeeve said that the government had no preconceived notions about the number of chancellors. "Though the Bill speaks of a Chancellor for each university, 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," Rajeeve said, leaving the question of the number of Chancellors open.
Former higher education minister K T 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. Already, the government has removed the Governor and appointed the noted danseuse Mallika Sarabhai as the Chancellor of Kalamandalam, which comes under the Culture Department.
The law minister fully rejected the UDF amendment that the Chancellor should either be a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of Kerala. He said the government would prefer a person of eminence in a particular field as Chancellor.
He said 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.
Rajeeve raised a practical difficulty in accepting the UDF's third amendment in full. The UDF wanted the Chief Justice of Kerala as one of the three members of the Chancellor selection panel. "What if someone who had applied for the post and lost goes to the High Court against the decision taken by a committee that has the Chief Justice himself as the member," he asked.
So he tweaked the amendment and in place of the Chief Justice of Kerala, the Speaker was substituted. This way the selection panel will be similar to the one for Lok Ayukta: the Chief Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Speaker. Now that the government had accepted the UDF's amendment, even if not in full, Rajeeve wanted the UDF to accept this compromise formula.
Opposition Leader V D Satheesan refused. He said the inclusion of the Speaker would offer the ruling party a decisive say in the selection of the Chancellor. "Our fears that the autonomy of universities would be eroded have not been assuaged," the Opposition Leader said and staged a walkout.
Ironically, whether the amended act would become law depends on Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. He has already said that he would not give his assent to the Bill and would instead pass it on to the President as he did not want to sit in judgment over a piece of legislation that directly deals with his role.
In fact, the Governor had not yet given his assent to another amendment to University Laws and an amendment to the Lok Ayukta Act, both of which undermine the Governor's powers and were passed by the Assembly in August.
