- Monika Godara
INTRODUCTION
Education has always been a subject of great concern. Education develops society and economy of a nation. It enhances the knowledge and skills of the population and leads to the development of a nation. At the time of commencement of the Constitution, education was enforced as a subject of state matter. Later on, with the enactment of 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, the subject of education was shifted from the State List (List II) to the Concurrent List (List III) in the Seventh Schedule envisaged in Article 246 of the Constitution.
With the passage of time and development of some states in area of education, there is a demand for the shifting of education again to the State List so that the States can enact rules and regulation according to their own educational standards. A writ petition also came across Madras High Court challenging the transfer.
THE PETITION
In September, 2021, a writ petition was filed by a DMK MLA, Ezhilan Naganathan, before the Madras High Court challenging Section 57 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. The petition stated that the amendment violates the basic structure of Indian Constitution and pleaded the High Court to declare the Section 57 as “ultra vires” i.e. beyond the legal authority of the Indian Constitution.
He stated, “The original Constitution conferred exclusive domain to the States in respect of all aspects of education, content, medium of instruction and procedure of admission. Only the subject of the coordination and maintenance of standards in higher education was conferred on the Union Government.” The 42nd Amendment which shifted education to the Concurrent List violated the “federal structure as originally envisaged by the Constitution framers.”
FURTHER ACTION
Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu accepted the petition and is suo motu added the State government as a respondent to the petition. They also directed the union and State government to file their counter affidavits.
The counsel for petitioner, NR Elango, argued that shifting of one subject from one list to another in the seventh schedule cannot be unilaterally done the Union Parliament as it requires a special procedure of ratification by the state legislative assemblies. He stated that education was a provincial subject even before the independence and referred for it to the Government of India Act, 1935. After independence, the constitution framers also kept the subject in the state list.
The Additional Solicitor General, R Sankaranarayanan denied that the argument that shifting education to concurrent list is a threat to federal structure and stated that it has only been shifted to Concurrent List and not to the Union List.
NEED TO SHIFT EDUCATION IN STATE LIST
The writ petition stated that the Constituent Assembly also favored that education should be a state subject and the Union Government should not intervene in this subject. They included it in State List at the time of commencement of Constitution. It was overturned by the 42nd Amendment Act which shifted it to the Concurrent List. It disturbed the basic structure of the Constitution and degraded its dignity.
As the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993, Regulations of 2014 and the New Education Policy (NEP) of 2020 determine the same minimum qualification for the appointment of teachers and Physical Education teacher in all pre-primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate schools or colleges throughout the country.
The New Education Policy, 2020 has also established a number of centralized agencies and institutions to manage all the aspects related to the subject of education with great efficiency. It disturbs the autonomy of the State governments and fails to balance the inequality of needs and requirements for the profession of teaching that vary from one state to another.
CONCLUSION
The New Education Policy, 2020 can be rightly termed as a centralizing policy as it has led to the centralization of all decision-making looking from ECCE and primary education to higher education and also to professional education in the hands of Union Government.
NEP seizes the constitutional rights of the State governments that allow them to frame their own policies and programmes and also to make laws concerned to the subject of education, while looking at the needs and demands of the people of the concerned state.
Therefore, the subject of education should be shifted to the State List (List II) of the seventh schedule. The State government can make laws and regulations on this subject with more efficiency than the union government as the needs and aspirations of people vary from one state to another and each state government can cater to their needs and their standards.
On the other hand, education being in the concurrent list keeps the state governments subordinate to the Union government for taking any decision related to the subject of education. Union Government cannot meet the varied standards of education throughout the nation.
REFERENCES
1. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/pil-madras-high-court-education-stateconcurrent-list-constitution visited on 31st of October, 2021 at 3. 24 pm
2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/case-in-madras-hc-challengesconstitutional-amendment-shifting-education-from-state-list-to-concurrentlist/article36448046.ece visited on 31st of October, 2021 at 4.09 pm
3. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2020/sep/10/bring-education-backunder-state-list-experts-2194791.html visited on 31st of October, 2021 at 4.56 pm
4. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/move-education-back-state-list-dmk-mla-movesmadras-hc-155189 visited on 31st of October, 2021 at 5.48 pm