The Threat to Federalism in Agricultural Education : Daily Current Affairs

Date: 22/11/2022

Relevance: GS-2: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure,

Key Phrases: Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS), UGC Regulations, 2018, Principle of Federalism.

Why in News?

A two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court in its latest judgment has set aside the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS).
The court has held that the VC of KUFOS was overlooking the UGC Regulations, 2018, which cannot be sustained under law.

Key Highlights:

The court has ruled that the appointment violates the procedures in the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018.
The court has listed two specific violations:
- The search committee recommended a single name and not a panel of three names;
- The State government included the Director-General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) instead of a nominee of the UGC in the search committee.
It has held that provisions of the UGC regulations, 2018 in the matter of the appointment of vice chancellor and the constitution of the search cum selection committee have supremacy and paramountcy over the provisions of the KUFOS Act, 2010.

Applicability of UGC Regulations on the Agricultural Universities:

UGC Regulations specifically exclude agricultural universities from their bearing.
Therefore, UGC regulations are not applicable to the appointment of a VC in an agricultural university.
The Kerala University Fisheries and Ocean Studies Act 2010 is only applicable to the procedure for the selection and appointment of VC in KUFOS.

Issues with the judgement:

The judgment weakens the principle of federalism in higher education by dismantling the role of State governments in the establishment and functioning of State Agricultural Universities.
It raises an existential threat for the facilitator of agricultural education in India i.e., the ICAR by creating a false equivalence between the university system under the UGC and the agricultural university system under the State governments.
The judgment also threatens to jeopardise the ICAR’s ongoing efforts to ensure a minimum level of uniformity in agricultural education in the country, including in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors.
The selection and appointment of the VC in agricultural universities are governed by the statutes enacted by the state legislature and the qualification criteria as per UGC regulations have been complied with during the selection and appointment of the VC.

The Constitutional Position of Agricultural Education in India:

The evolution of agricultural education in India after independence corresponds to the exclusive role bestowed by the Constitution to the States in the management of agriculture.
Agricultural education and research come under Entry 14 of List II (State List) of the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is an exclusive field occupied by the state.
Agricultural education stands detached from the other streams of higher education and attached to the occupied field of agriculture in List II.
Despite the exclusion of agricultural education from Entry 25, the judgment has arbitrarily thrust the power of Entry 66 of List I on all agricultural/veterinary/fisheries universities in India. As a result, Entry 14 of List II stands thoroughly undermined.

Whether the UGC Regulations Apply to the University’s Faculty Appointments?

Agricultural University does not come under the purview of UGC.
The ICAR has had a unique legal status. It was established in 1929 as a department of the Government of India though it was also a society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
After independence, the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) was set up in 1973 in the Ministry of Agriculture.
The major functions of DARE were to facilitate agricultural research and education, coordinate between the Centre and the States, and attend to matters related to the ICAR.
The Secretary to the Government of India in DARE was concurrently designated as the Director-General of ICAR.
In 1983, the Supreme Court of India ruled in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India that ICAR is almost an inseparable adjunct of the Government of India having an outward form of being a society; it could be styled as a society set up by the State and therefore, would be an instrumentality of the State.

Role of ICAR in Facilitating Agricultural Education:

The ICAR has facilitated agricultural education as a national expert body without overstepping into the constitutional jurisdiction of the State governments.
It did not take recourse to one-size-fits-all legislation in Parliament in order to bring about some uniformity in the administration of agricultural universities.
Instead, it chose to send a Model Act for Agricultural Universities in India to the State governments and let them decide whether to accept or reject it.
In other words, there was never an ambiguity within the ICAR system over the authoritative role of State governments in the management of agricultural universities.
The Kerala High Court’s judgment threatens to disrupt this delicate equilibrium maintained over the past five decades.
Essentially, the court has sought to substitute the role of the ICAR with the UGC’s regulations, which are applicable solely to institutions listed in Entry 25 of List III.

ICAR’s Model Act:

The Model Act stipulates the constitution of the search committee for Vice-Chancellors with three members:
- The Director-General of ICAR
- One nominee of the government
- one nominee of the Chancellor
Till 2019, 28% of State Agricultural Universities (SAU) and State Veterinary Universities (SVU) had adopted the ICAR’s Model Act, and 48% of SAUs/SVUs had adopted some of its provisions.
However, the Kerala High Court judgment has made the presence of an ICAR representative invalid and necessitates its replacement with a UGC representative.
In short, all past and future appointments of Vice-Chancellors of SAUs/SVU/SFUs made under the ICAR’s Model Act are rendered inadmissible.

Conclusion:

The ICAR was not a party to the case in the High Court, which effectively rules it out of participation at the level of appeal too but the ICAR needs to speak up.
It must unequivocally and publicly state that agricultural education is not a part of Entry 25 in List III but of Entry 14 in List II, and hence it cannot be subjected to the powers of Entry 66 in List I.
What is at stake is not just the spirit of federalism but also the unique status conferred to agricultural education by the Constitution.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. The Kerala High Court has recently set aside the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS). In this context, discuss the constitutional position of agricultural education in India as well as the issues with the judgement passed by the court. (150 words)