logo
Who should control education?

Who should control education?

Time of India21-05-2025

In recent days,
debates
among
politicians
and academicians have resurfaced over moving
education
back to the state list. These discussions seem prompted by controversies surrounding centrally conducted exams such as NEET, NET, and
CUET
, which have been riddled with paper leaks, impersonation, grace marks, corruption, and other irregularities.
The debate over education being in the concurrent list carries strong political undertones. States opposing it are largely ruled by opposition parties, which at times use the issue for vote-bank politics.
The British introduced the Govt of India Act, 1935, which for the first time established a federal structure in the country. Legislative subjects were divided between the federal govt (present-day Union) and the provinces (now states).
Education, seen as an important "public good", was placed in the provincial list. After independence, this continued, and education was included in the state list under the Constitution's distribution of powers.
Following the Emergency in 1975, the Congress govt set up the Swaran Singh Committee to recommend constitutional amendments. One was to move education to the concurrent list, allowing the Union govt to frame national education policies.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Kan 3 millioner kr vare 30 år inn i pensjonisttilværelsen?
Fisher Investments Norden
Undo
This led to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, which shifted education from the state to the concurrent list, though no rationale was given for the move. Even before the 42nd Amendment, Entries 65 and 66 of the Union list gave the Centre powers to set up professional, vocational, and training institutions and regulate standards in higher education and research, which was how the University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in the 1950s.
After the Emergency ended in 1977, the Janata govt came to power and introduced the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) to reverse several changes made by the 42nd Amendment. One was to return 'education' to the state list. While it passed in the Lok Sabha, it failed in the Rajya Sabha, so education remained in the concurrent list. The 1983 Sarkaria Commission, set up by the Govt of India to study Centre-state relations, recommended maintaining the status quo.
However, it advised that the Union govt consult states before legislating on concurrent list subjects.
Education, as a concurrent subject, is a shared responsibility. While the Centre sets national policies, states adapt and implement them based on local needs and resources. Central and state govts can enact laws on education. However, in case of a conflict, the central law prevails unless the state law has received the President's assent, in which case it can take effect.
This ensures uniformity and smoother coordination in implementing education-related laws.
Concurrent jurisdiction in education covers areas such as curriculum, pedagogy, teacher training, vocational and adult education, infrastructure, standards, and quality assurance. Central and state govts can frame policies and regulations in these domains, and the shared status enables collaboration to achieve common goals in the education sector.
It also allows both govts to monitor institutions for compliance with laws and standards.
Funding, too, is shared, with the central govt providing support through grants and schemes.
Those advocating for shifting education back to the state list offer several arguments. States, they say, bear 75% of education-related expenditure and should have greater authority to regulate educational institutions without interference from the Centre.
Also, restoring education to state control would enhance autonomy, allowing them to frame policies tailored to local aspirations. States would have the freedom to launch new schemes and develop educational models suited to their regions without waiting for central approval.
This flexibility could lead to more creative approaches to learning and teaching.
Accountability is another factor. When states design their own policies, they are more likely to take responsibility for their success or failure.
Also, central policies such as NEET, CUET, and the NEP conflict with state-level frameworks designed to meet regional needs. Those in favour of keeping education in the concurrent list say the Centre plays an important role in ensuring standards and equal access to quality education.
Many states lack the resources to improve quality and enrolment, especially in higher education, which central involvement helps address through targeted schemes and financial support.
A standardised national curriculum is also essential to align youth skills with the demands of a pan-India and global job market.
It would also enable the Centre to address emerging national and global issues such as sustainability, climate change, digital literacy, and AI with suitable policies, while accommodating state-specific concerns. Central leadership offers policy direction, supervision, and consistency in implementation across institutions.
Ten years before the 1976 shift, the Kothari Commission advocated for a common national educational framework to promote national integration and cultural exchange.
A balance between national standards and state flexibility supports both unity and diversity. The concurrent list status also allows the Centre to establish and manage institutions of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, NITs, and AIIMS, whose innovation and research have a global impact.
At the core of the issue lie two competing needs: national coordination and standards, and greater state autonomy and flexibility. A possible way forward may lie in reconciling the two through "collaborative federalism", a concept recommended by the Kothari Commission. Under this model, the Centre can set broad national policies, standards, and guidelines, while allowing states the autonomy to adapt and implement them based on local needs.
Many of the arguments made for shifting education to the state list, such as tailoring policies to regional demands, can still be achieved under the concurrent list if collaborative mechanisms are implemented.
With many states struggling to fund their universities, the concurrent list enables the Union govt to offer financial and technical support while ensuring states have the resources to manage their systems effectively. What truly matters is not where education sits constitutionally, but how well the principles of federalism are applied to improve the quality of education and research nationwide. The way forward lies in collaboration, not confrontation.
(The writer is a former member of the Union Public Service Commission and former Vice Chancellor of Anna University.)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds
SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds

Hindustan Times

time34 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government seeking an urgent hearing in its suit against the Union government for allegedly withholding over ₹2,000 crore in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). The Tamil Nadu government had described the Centre's move as 'coercive tactics' to force the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. 'For how long has this fund not been given? What is the urgency now?' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked senior advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the matter on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, seeking an expedited listing. As Wilson flagged the constitutional right to free and compulsory education of nearly 48 lakh students in the state being adversely impacted due to the withholding of the fund, the bench remained unconvinced and declined the request, saying: 'The plea is rejected.' The brief exchange took place during the Supreme Court's ongoing summer recess, now designated as a period of 'partial court working days' where only two to three benches sit and only matters of pressing urgency are usually considered, in addition to some old cases where both sides have given their consent to argue during the break. The regular functioning of the top court will resume on July 14. Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu's suit accuses the Centre of linking its annual share under the SSS to the implementation of the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme -- a condition the state calls 'unconstitutional, arbitrary and coercive.' According to the suit, the Project Approval Board had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu under SSS for the financial year 2024–25, of which ₹2,151.59 crore was to be the Centre's 60% share. The state claims this amount was not released solely because of its principled opposition to NEP 2020. Tamil Nadu, ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been a vocal critic of the NEP, particularly its three-language formula, which the state believes undermines its two-language policy rooted in Tamil linguistic pride and regional identity. 'The Union Government seeks to coerce the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,' the suit submitted, while asserting that SSS is a standalone scheme that should not be tied to compliance with any other policy. The suit further alleged that the withholding of funds 'cripples the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,' directly impacting 43.9 lakh students, 2.2 lakh teachers, and over 32,000 school staff in the state. The state's legal team has argued that the Centre's move violates the spirit of cooperative federalism and amounts to an 'usurpation' of the state's constitutional powers to legislate on education, which falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Tamil Nadu has also urged the Supreme Court to declare that the implementation of NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, which mandates full compliance with NEP, is not binding on the state. It has sought a direction to the Centre to immediately release ₹2,291 crore (including interest), claiming the delay is 'not only illegal but also violative of constitutional morality.' While the plea for an urgent hearing has now been declined, the main suit continues to be listed for regular hearing. The standoff comes amid a broader constitutional tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent, and the matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.

Germany tightens migration rules: 3-year citizenship ends, family visas frozen for some
Germany tightens migration rules: 3-year citizenship ends, family visas frozen for some

Time of India

time35 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Germany tightens migration rules: 3-year citizenship ends, family visas frozen for some

Germany has introduced stricter rules on naturalisation and family reunification for certain categories of migrants. The changes, approved by Chancellor Friedrich Merz 's government on May 28, aim to reduce irregular migration and ease pressure on integration systems. Citizenship pathway extended Under the new policy, the option for "well-integrated" migrants to apply for German citizenship after just three years of residence has been discontinued. All applicants will now be required to complete at least five years of legal residency, meet German language proficiency at the B1 level, and demonstrate financial self-sufficiency. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: 1 simple trick to get all TV channels Techno Mag Learn More Undo The earlier fast-track provision allowed those with C1-level language skills and a record of community contribution to naturalise in three years. Officials now say the change is intended to create a more uniform path to citizenship. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Family reunification suspended Live Events You Might Also Like: Germany prepares to abolish its fast-track path to Citizenship Another key measure is the temporary suspension of family reunification rights for individuals holding subsidiary protection status. For the next two years, these migrants will not be permitted to bring immediate family members—such as spouses and children—to join them in Germany. This freeze affects an estimated 380,000 people and comes amid a backdrop of rising migration. Until now, Germany has issued around 12,000 family reunification visas annually under this category. Government's justification of these reforms Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt stated that the changes are necessary to manage the country's migration and integration capacity. 'We need to reduce the pull factors that make Germany a top destination for irregular migration,' he said. You Might Also Like: Germany's immigration policies set for overhaul as Conservatives take power The government argues that the volume of new arrivals and pending family reunification applications has placed a strain on housing, education, and social services. Political context of the reforms introduced Several civil society groups and migration experts have criticised the policy, warning that it could lead to prolonged family separation and slow the integration process for migrants already living in Germany. However, supporters of the move believe it reflects growing public concern over migration levels and ensures that naturalisation is based on deeper integration and contribution to German society. The reforms come at a time of increasing pressure from conservative and far-right parties. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has campaigned on limiting immigration, continues to gain traction in regional polls. Chancellor Merz has described the policy shift as a 'balanced response' to national priorities, stating that the goal is to maintain social cohesion and manage migration flows responsibly. The government is expected to fast-track the new rules through the Bundestag. Since the legislation does not require Bundesrat approval, it is likely to be enacted before the summer recess. Migrants currently applying for citizenship or family reunification are advised to review the new requirements and consult official sources or legal advisors.

11 years of Modi govt 'golden period' of resolve, dedication towards public service: Amit Shah
11 years of Modi govt 'golden period' of resolve, dedication towards public service: Amit Shah

The Hindu

time37 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

11 years of Modi govt 'golden period' of resolve, dedication towards public service: Amit Shah

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday (June 9, 2025) said the 11 years of Modi government was a "golden period" of resolve, endeavour and dedication towards public service. In Narendra Modi's third term as Prime Minister, Mr. Shah said this new India is rapidly progressing towards development and self-reliance with the power of reform, perform and transform. He said this journey of making India "number 1" in every field by bringing positive changes in the lives of the countrymen will continue. "The historic 11 years of the Modi Government have been a golden period of resolve, endeavour and dedication towards public service," he wrote on 'X' in Hindi and called it 11 years of "seva" (service). #11YearsOfSeva राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा की दिशा में भी मील का पत्थर सिद्ध हुए हैं। नक्सलवाद अपनी अंतिम साँसे गिन रहा है, जम्मू-कश्मीर और पूर्वोत्तर में शांति की स्थापना हुई है, भारत अब आतंकवादी हमलों का जवाब आतंकियों के घर में घुस कर देता है। यह मोदी सरकार में भारत की बदलती तस्वीर को… — Amit Shah (@AmitShah) June 9, 2025 The Modi government completes the first year of its third term on Monday. The Home Minister said the country has seen a new era of economic revival, social justice, cultural pride and national security. "The Modi government has proved that when the leadership is clear, the resolve is firm and the intention is of public service, then new records of service, security and good governance are created," he said. Mr. Shah said when PM Modi took over the reins of the country in 2014, there was policy paralysis in the country. He said there were no policies, no leadership and scams were at their peak in the government the economy was in shambles and the governance system was directionless. The Home Minister said during the "11 years of seva", the speed and scale of the country's development have been changed by 'Minimum Government, Maximum Governance'. "PM Shri @narendramodi ji brought farmers, women, backwards, Dalits and marginalised to the centre of governance and created a work culture of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas and Sabka Prayas instead of appeasement," he said. Mr. Shah said the 11 years of the Modi government have also proved to be a milestone in the direction of national security. "Naxalism is on its last legs, peace has been established in Jammu-Kashmir and the Northeast, India now responds to terrorist attacks by entering the homes of terrorists. This shows the changing picture of India under the Modi government," he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store