When a vacant VC post sparks a power tussle

In an unusual move, Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has issued a one-month ultimatum to the state government to invite applications for the post of vice-chancellor (VC) of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (RDPR) University. The governor warned that if the government fails to act, he would initiate the process himself. The post has remained vacant since May 2024, when Vishnukant S Chatpalli completed his term.

The governor’s intervention – conveyed through a sharply worded letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah – reflects mounting frustration over the government’s sluggishness in filling top university posts. Currently, at least six public universities in Karnataka are functioning without a full-time vice-chancellor, adversely affecting their academic and administrative operations.

While Gehlot’s concern over the leadership vacuum at RDPR University is justified, his selective outrage and urgency raise eyebrows. Why single out this university when several others continue without permanent heads? The answer lies in the ongoing political tussle between Raj Bhavan and Vidhana Soudha.

In December 2024, the Karnataka legislature passed an amendment to the RDPR University Act, stripping the governor of his role as chancellor and vesting that power in the chief minister. This aligns with a broader trend among opposition-ruled states seeking to reduce the governor’s influence in higher education, citing concerns over political interference and constitutional overreach. However, the bill remains pending as the governor is yet to grant assent.

Historically, governors were designated as chancellors of state universities to safeguard institutional autonomy from political meddling. However, over the years, the role has become increasingly contentious, especially in states where the ruling party and the governor belong to opposing political camps. Gehlot, once seen as a governor who adhered to constitutional norms, now faces accusations of acting under pressure from the central government.

The state government, meanwhile, has delayed advertising the VC post, presumably hoping to bypass the governor once the amendment comes into effect. This standoff raises two critical concerns: propriety and constitutional intent. While the governor insists

that appointments must follow the existing legal framework until the amendment is enacted, his reluctance to grant assent raises concerns of deliberate obstruction.

The root of the impasse lies in Article 200 of the Constitution, which pertains to the governor’s powers related to state legislation. The Article does not specify a timeline for approving or rejecting bills, enabling governors to exercise what is effectively a ‘pocket veto’ by indefinitely withholding assent, often rendering them infructuous. This practice has drawn severe criticism from the judiciary in the past.

Now, in a significant rebuke to Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, who has consistently delayed giving assent to bills, the Supreme Court has ‘read down’ Article 200, setting a deadline of one to three months for gubernatorial actions. This is a welcome step, as prolonged delay in decision-making disrupts governance and policy, erodes democracy, undermines cooperative federalism, and compromises Centre-state relations.

The Karnataka government must also reflect on its inconsistency. If removing the governor as chancellor is essential for better governance, why limit the reform to just one university? This selective approach raises suspicions of political motives or vested interests.

Contentious selection processes

Other states have taken similar steps with varying outcomes. In 2013, Gujarat amended its university laws curtailing the governor’s powers while retaining the ceremonial role of chancellor. The amendment was approved by then-Governor O P Kohli during Narendra Modi’s tenure as the chief minister. In contrast, a similar bill adopted by Kerala was referred to the President, who withheld assent – highlighting how outcomes differ based on political context.

Under the current system, the VC selection process involves a three-member selection committee that comprises nominees from the governor, the chief minister, and the University Grants Commission (UGC). The governor then selects one candidate from a shortlist of three. Unfortunately, this system has often resulted in questionable appointments, influenced by caste, political allegiance, and even financial considerations, rather than academic merit or leadership ability.

A recent UGC draft guideline has further sparked fresh controversy by proposing that the governor, as chancellor, should unilaterally form the VC selection committee, excluding state governments altogether. Non-NDA-ruled states have strongly opposed this move, calling it an infringement on their autonomy. Education falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, and states, as primary funders of universities, rightfully seek a say in their governance.

India’s federal structure is weakened when the Centre and states clash over critical areas such as education. Uniform rules imposed from above may ignore regional realities and risk marginalising deserving local talent. A balanced, collaborative framework that respects both state involvement and institutional integrity is essential.

The truth is that neither governor-led nor government-controlled systems can guarantee competent leadership unless merit becomes the overriding criterion. Over the years, the VC selection process has become heavily politicised, compromising the quality of higher education.

The need of the hour is a transparent, consultative, and apolitical appointment mechanism. Governors and elected governments must move beyond confrontation and focus on nurturing institutions. Universities should be temples of learning, not battlegrounds for asserting political dominance, They should be nurseries for future leaders, innovators, and thinkers.

While the latest apex court order does not leave Gehlot with much leeway, the standoff over the RDPR University’s VC appointment is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in the country’s higher education governance. Both Raj Bhavan and Vidhana Soudha must rise above partisan calculations and commit to a system that upholds academic excellence over political expediency.

Ultimately, the future of Karnataka’s universities – and by extension, its students – depends on the integrity and competence of those who lead them. It is time to depoliticise education and empower institutions to reclaim their rightful place as beacons of knowledge, creativity, and societal transformation. This can only be achieved through visionary academic leadership committed to excellence and progress.

(The writer is a Bengaluru-based senior journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.