In August, the simmering feud between Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and the CPI(M)-led state government reached boiling point. The government wanted the governor to urgently re-promulgate 11 ordinances notified on February 7; Khan said he would do it only after examining whether “any urgency exists”. Amid the governance deadlock, the ordinances lapsed on August 8, forcing the government to hurriedly call a special session of the assembly for tabling bills.
The most controversial among the lapsed ordinances was the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Ordinance, which diluted the powers of the anti-corruption body and gave the government an option to ignore its rulings. The opposition alleged that the ordinance was meant to shield Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan from complaints pending before the Lok Ayukta. Apparently, the government did not want a repeat of what happened to K.T. Jaleel, former higher education minister who was forced to step down in April last year, after the Lok Ayukta found him guilty of abuse of power in a case related to irregularities in the appointment of his relative in a state-run corporation.
With the controversial ordinance having lapsed, a bill curtailing Lok Ayukta’s powers with retrospective effect was tabled by the government at the special session of the assembly that began on August 22. The provisions of the bill have triggered a war of words between the opposition and the government.
Lapsed ordinances have prompted CPI(M) leaders to launch into tirades against the governor. They say Khan is an RSS agent who is implementing the Union government’s plan to topple the state government.
Opposition parties are not buying it, though. “CPI(M) leaders always preach parliamentary democracy and the power of the legislative assembly,” said state BJP president K. Surendran. “But they are bringing out all these ordinances to protect their interests. By labelling the governor as an RSS-BJP person, they are trying to divert people’s attention.”
Interestingly, it is not the governor’s role as constitutional head of the government that has precipitated the current governance crisis; it is his repeated efforts to assert his statutory role as chancellor of universities. Khan had written a sharply worded letter to Vijayan last December, hinting that the government was undermining his authority as chancellor while making appointments in universities. He recommended that the chief minister amend university laws to appoint himself as chancellor, so that “universities come under the direct control of the government, [and] there will be no scope for anybody to make allegations of political interference”.
Khan wrote the letter after the government forced him to extend the tenure of Prof Gopinath Ravindran as vice chancellor of Kannur University. He had earlier publicly opposed the government’s decision to give four more years to Ravindran, saying the vice chancellor was past the stipulated age limit of 60. “Higher education in Kerala is going to the dogs,” he said.
Vijayan wrote a series of letters to placate Khan, who apparently extracted a promise from the chief minister that the government would no longer interfere with his powers as chancellor. Despite the assurances, though, the government appears determined to gain more influence in university appointments.
“The sangh parivar is trying to smuggle the hindutva agenda everywhere,” Higher Education Minister R. Bindu told THE WEEK. “If they become successful in placing their people in key positions, like that of vice chancellor in universities, it would affect Kerala.”
The government’s move seems to have provoked Khan into action. On August 5, he constituted a search committee for selecting the successor to V.P. Mahadevan Pillai, whose tenure as Kerala University vice chancellor ends in October. The search committee usually consists of three members: nominees of the governor, the University Grants Commission and the university senate. The committee Khan notified, however, has just two members now. The nominee of CPI(M)-dominated senate—state planning board vice chairman V.K. Ramachandran—has declined to join the committee, apparently to buy time for the government to pass the Universities Laws Amendment Bill, expand the search committee, and give the government more leverage in appointing vice chancellors.
Providing ammunition to the governor in this battle is the Save University Campaign Committee, a whistleblower group that advocates reforming the state’s higher education sector. The SUCC alleges that the recent selection of Priya Varghese, spouse of CPI(M) leader and chief minister’s private secretary K.K. Ragesh, as associate professor in Kannur University is a clear case of favouritism. According to an RTI document obtained by the group, Varghese had the lowest research score among the six eligible candidates for the post, but she came first in a provisional rank list prepared by the university after conducting interviews. The university maintains that Varghese was selected on the basis of her performance in the interview. The governor, however, has stayed her appointment.
“The university used a loophole in UGC regulations which say that the research score shall be considered only for shortlisting candidates for interview, and that selections shall be based only on performance in the interview,” said R.S. Sasikumar, SUCC chairman. “The interview process was rigged. Varghese did not have the required eight years of teaching experience to apply for the post. She earned a PhD (a basic qualification for the post of associate professor) in 2019. She has worked in a teaching position only for 20 days since then. Her experience as student services director at Kannur University (from August 2019 to June 2021) and assistant director at Kerala Bhasha Institute (from July 2021 to the present) cannot be counted as teaching experience.”
Bindu, however, said the SUCC was driven by political agenda. “Just because a person’s husband is a CPI(M) leader, can they not apply for a job? When a woman secures a position with her academic qualifications, people attribute it to her husband’s influence. It is outrageous and painful,” she said.
On August 16, Ravindran wrote to the governor that there was no irregularity in the selection process. The same day, the state cabinet cleared the Universities Laws Amendment Bill. Khan shot back by announcing a “full-fledged inquiry” into allegations of nepotism in all universities.
Shino P. Jose, member of Kannur University’s academic council, said Ravindran’s “arrogance” had worsened the row. “As vice chancellor, Ravindran has not allowed the council to vote on a single resolution. Things are run according to his whims and fancies. It is this attitude that made the spat more personal,” he said.
Jose was one of the petitioners who moved court against Ravindran’s apparently unilateral decision last year to reconstitute the board of studies of Kannur University. In March, the Kerala High Court quashed all appointments made by Ravindran.
“Only the chancellor has the power to reconstitute the board, and the VC bypassed him to make the appointments,” said Jose. “Around 68 people nominated by the VC did not have even basic qualifications prescribed by the UGC. Around 50 of them were from CPI(M)-controlled self-financing colleges.”
The legal setback apparently did not prevent Ravindran from asking the governor to approve the same list of members. “The governor returned the list saying it is his prerogative as chancellor to nominate members,” said Jose. “But the VC wanted to prove that his selections were correct. So he sent the same list again, this time asking that the governor ‘nominate’ the people on the list. It is with the governor now.”
George Poonthottam, senior advocate in the Kerala High Court who has appeared in cases related to university appointments, said vice chancellors in universities in Kerala were controlled by a cohort affiliated to the CPI(M). “Vice chancellors do not show spine,” he said. “Most VCs in Kerala are outstanding academicians and scientists. But, as administrators, they are weak.”