On April 8, the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Tamil Nadu government in its case against Governor RN Ravi’s failure to sign bills into law. The court ruling, which stipulates time limits for governors to act on the bills sent to them, has become the latest flashpoint in the growing rancour between the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre and opposition-ruled state governments.

Chief Minister MK Stalin called the order “historic” and credited it for putting an end to the practice of unelected governors “stalling progressive legislative reforms” in states run by the BJP’s opponents. In a first, the Tamil Nadu government on Saturday enacted the 10 bills in question without the governor’s clearance, following the judgement.

Notably, seven of these bills pertain to the administration of state universities, including matters such as the appointment of vice chancellors. Earlier, John Brittas of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) had sought to introduce a private member’s bill in the Rajya Sabha to deal with the issue of governors doubling up as university chancellors.

By convention, governors also serve as default university chancellors in the respective states that are assigned to them. Through his bill, Brittas proposed to amend the Constitution so it would forbid governors from holding such “extra-constitutional” positions. He cited reports by various commissions appointed by previous governments for improving Centre-state relations to back his arguments.

“All these commissions have emphasised on the fact that the governors should be allowed to perform at the advice of the council of ministers,” said the journalist-turned-politician from Kerala. “What is happening now is that the governors are unleashed against the elected government.”

While the CPI(M) leader failed to introduce his bill last July because of strong opposition from the treasury benches, he found success in his second attempt on February 7. Parliament’s website currently lists its status as “pending”.

Scroll contacted Brittas to discuss the bill as well as the recent Supreme Court judgement. Though the MP was busy travelling, he made time for a telephone interview. Edited excerpts:

Why did you try to introduce this bill?

Being the chancellors, governors were trying to throttle the administration of universities in opposition-ruled states. Chancellorship is a hangover of the British era. In the nineteenth century, Calcutta University’s chancellor was the governor-general. We continued this after independence.

But we never expected that when governors become chancellors, they will trample upon the administration of universities built with the sweat and blood of state governments. So, when it became unbearable, I moved a private member’s bill.

What was happening in Kerala when you first came up with this bill?

Then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan [Khan was appointed governor of Bihar in January] was appointing persons with loyalties to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as vice chancellors. They were blocking all state government initiatives. They were behaving in a high-handed way and disrupting the administration of the respective universities.

These universities in Kerala have a history that dates back several decades. How can somebody, who comes from elsewhere, appoint his henchmen as the vice chancellor and hijack higher education? That was the background in which I was forced to bring this bill.

Why is there so much contention between the states and the Centre when it comes to universities?

Every fascist government wants to control minds. The best way to control minds is to have a grip on culture and education. Why are they keen on picking up from history selectively or changing the syllabus? Because they understand they have to do it to influence minds. You rewrite history, create mythology, inject poison in young minds – that is how the culture of a nation changes.

What happened after you moved the bill?

I moved it in July 2024. At that time, the BJP members ganged up and it was defeated at the introductory stage. To oppose a private member’s bill at the introductory stage is unheard of in the history of India. What I was trying to tell them is that this is what their leader, Narendra Modi, did in 2013.

The Gujarat Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2013 was meant to divest the governor of chancellorship. So, if Gujarat has done something, why can’t other states do it? That was the logic. I really want it to be a part of the Constitution that the governor should not be holding such posts because it is not their job.

There are 1,100 plus universities in India. Majority of these are state universities. The finances for them come from the state budget. And somebody, who just happens to be the governor, decides everything.

Even in the draft University Grants Commission regulations, there is an overwhelming importance accorded to the governor in the search-cum-selection committee for the vice chancellors. So, there is a pattern.

Narendra Modi as chief minister had spoken so much about enriching federalism. From the moment he became the prime minister, he has done everything against that. He did a somersault.

Let’s move to the Supreme Court judgement in the Tamil Nadu case. How do you view it?

It was much needed. The whole nation was waiting to hear from the Supreme Court. The CPI(M) has been vigorously arguing for federal principles to be upheld. The Supreme Court verdict has come as a great relief to all of us.

On previous occasions, the court expressed its view that governors are not supposed to keep bills pending but fell short of pronouncing a coherent verdict. Maybe those benches expected that the people serving as governors would have the sense to understand what the Supreme Court meant. But these people are bent upon disrupting the opposition-ruled states. Such niceties and finesse will not work with them.

That is why, when it came to Tamil Nadu, there was a coherent, emphatic verdict from the Supreme Court. The writing on the wall was very clear. The governor should have seen it. It is something that he has invited upon himself.

On X, you posted that the Centre should now sack the Tamil Nadu governor. Why?

If he had an iota of self-respect, he would have resigned and gone. But I don’t expect these people to do it. They have no respect towards any institutions or the Constitution. They talk about cooperative federalism all the time. But every measure adopted by the central government is to usurp the powers of the state governments.

They have been systematically getting into things that fall under the state list, using centrally-sponsored schemes. That is the biggest conspiracy happening in the country right now. For example, “health” comes under the state list. They have budgeted some money as part of the National Health Mission. Now they say if any state wants to get money under this scheme, it has to follow new dictums: primary health centres have to be named Ayushman Arogya Mandirs.

What does Kerala have to do with all these bloody Sanskrit words? Kerala has the history of running the best primary health centres. Even before they thought about primary health centres, we had them in every village.

Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar has criticised the time limits laid down for governors in the judgement as “judicial overreach”. Your response?

The governor needs to understand the role of the Supreme Court. The court has interpreted the phrase “as soon as possible”. The Constitution says a bill needs to be given assent by the governor as soon as possible. This “as soon as possible” was never adhered to by the governors.

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. That is what they have done. He should understand this.

Do you think the office of the governor should be abolished?

We have governors because the Constitution framers had some apprehensions with regard to the unity of the country. At that time, the partition was taking place and there was violence in some places. Now India has become a cohesive nation. Such posts are not at all required. We can do away with the governor’s post. It is a huge expenditure and it is a huge embarrassment. It is an institution to embarrass the verdict of the people.

It is high time we do away with it. The chief justice of the High Court can render many of the functions of the governor. For example, administering the oath of office to the chief minister. It can easily be done by the chief justice.