Editorial 1 : Should education be brought back to the State list?
Context
The NEET-UG exam has been embroiled in controversies over the award of grace marks, allegation of paper leaks and other irregularities. The government also cancelled the UGC-NET exam after it was held, while the CSIR-NET and NEET-PG exams have been postponed.
What is the historical background?
- The Government of India Act, 1935 during the British rule created a federal structure for the first time in our polity.
- The legislative subjects were distributed between the federal legislature (present day Union) and provinces (present day States).
- Education which is an important public good was kept under the provincial list.
- After independence, this continued and education was part of the ‘State list’ under the distribution of powers.
- However, during the Emergency, the Congress party constituted the Swaran Singh Committee to provide recommendations for amendments to the Constitution.
- One of the recommendations of this committee was to place ‘education’ in the concurrent list in order to evolve all-India policies on the subject.
- This was implemented through the 42nd constitutional amendment (1976) by shifting ‘education’ from the State list to the concurrent list.
- There was no detailed rationale that was provided for this switch and the amendment was ratified by various States without adequate debate.
- The Janata Party government led by Morarji Desai that came to power after Emergency passed the 44th constitutional amendment (1978) to reverse many of the controversial changes made through the 42nd amendment.
- One of these amendments that was passed in the Lok Sabha but not in the Rajya Sabha was to bring back ‘education’ to the State list.
What are international practices?
- In the U.S., State and local governments set the overall educational standards, mandate standardised tests and supervise colleges and universities.
- The federal education department’s functions primarily include policies for financial aid, focussing on key educational issues and ensuring equal access.
- In Canada, education is completely managed by the provinces.
- In Germany, the constitution vests legislative powers for education with landers (equivalent of States).
- In South Africa, on the other hand, education is governed by two national departments for school and higher education. The provinces of the country have their own education departments for implementing policies of the national departments and dealing with local issues.
Suggestions
- The arguments in favour of ‘education’ in the concurrent list include a uniform education policy, improvement in standards and synergy between Centre and States.
- However, considering the vast diversity of the country, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is neither feasible nor desirable.
- Further, as per the report on ‘Analvsis of Budgeted expenditure on Education’ prepared by the Ministry of Education in 2022, out of the total revenue expenditure by education departments in our country estimated at 76.25 lakh crore (2020-21), 15% is spent by the Centre while 85% is spent by the States.
- Even if expenditure by all other departments on education and training are considered, the share works out to 24% and 76% respectively.
- The arguments against restoring education’ to State list include corruption coupled with lack of professionalism.
- The recent issues surrounding the NEET and NTA have however displaved that centralisation does not necessarily mean that these issues would vanish.
- However, Regulatory mechanisms for higher education can continue to be governed by central institutions like the National Medical Commission, University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education.
Conclusion
Considering the need for autonomy in view of the lion’s share of the expenditure being borne by the States, there needs to be a productive discussion towards moving ‘education’ back to the State list. This would enable them to frame tailor-made policies for syllabus, testing and admissions for higher education including professional courses like medicine and engineering.
Editorial 2 : Court on climate right and how India can enforce it
Context
Through its recent judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court of India has read into the Constitution of India the right to ‘be free from the adverse effects of climate change’, identifying both the right to life and the right to equality as its sources.
A new right around climate
- Scholars and legal practitioners are still unpacking the judgment. The issue before the Court was whether and how electricity transmission lines can be built through the habitat of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard.
- The government claimed that a previous court order protecting the bird’s habitat had affected the country’s renewable energy potential.
- Modifying this order, the Court prioritised transmission infrastructure to enable accelerated development of renewable energy to address climate change. But the more seismic aspect of the judgment was the newly minted ‘climate right’ rooted in the constitutionally guaranteed right to life (Article 21) and right to equality (Article 14).
- Reading this right into the Constitution potentially opens the door to climate litigation, empowering citizens to demand from the government that this right be protected.
- But the judgment also leaves unresolved questions like the Court overstate the large-scale clean energy agenda as the main pathway to avoiding climate harms and, correspondingly, understate climate adaptation and local environmental resilience.
The Ways
- One way forward is the slow accretion of judicial decisions around this right. But another is new legislation to actively realise a right against the adverse effects of climate change.
- The former approach, the proliferation of court-based action through enhanced litigation around climate claims, will likely lead, slowly and over time, to an incomplete patchwork of (judiciary-led) protections.
- As with many other well-meaning judicial orders directing the protection of fundamental rights, realising climate rights could become contingent on the passage of several subsequent policy actions.
- Moreover, a patchwork approach is less likely to chart an overarching framework to guide future policy.
Is the latter approach, climate legislation, then a preferred approach to protect climate rights?
- The judgment itself states that there is no “umbrella legislation’ in India that relates to climate change.
- And in so doing, seems to implicitly recognise the merits of an overarching, framework legislation.
- Drawing from the experience of other countries, framework legislation can bring several advantages.
- It can set the vision for engaging with climate change across sectors and regions, create necessary institutions and endow them with powers, and put in place processes for structured and deliberative governance in anticipation of and reaction to climate change.
Indian context is important
- These are important advantages, and good reasons for India to consider climate legislation.
- But at the same time, it is essential that Indian climate legislation not blindly copy other countries, and is tailored to the Indian context.
- Undoubtedly, India needs to transition to a low-carbon energy future, an imperative that is highlighted in the Ranjitsinh judgment.
- Climate legislation should also create a supportive regulatory environment for more sustainable cities, buildings, and transport networks.
- It should enable adaptation measures such as heat action plans sensitive to local context.
- It should provide mechanisms for shifting to more climate-resilient crops. It should protect key ecosystems such as mangroves that act as a buffer against extreme weather events.
- And, it should actively consider questions of social equity in how it achieves these tasks.
- In brief, it should provide a way of mainstreaming and internalising climate change considerations into how India develops. Nothing less is required to make progress toward avoiding the adverse effects of climate change
- India is still developing, is highly vulnerable, and yet to build much of its infrastructure, what the country needs is a law that enables progress toward both low-carbon and climate resilient development.
- A regulatory law focuses, in a narrow way, on emissions and how they can be limited.
- An enabling law can be written to stimulate development-focused decisions in a range of sectors across the economy – urban, agriculture, water, energy and so on – by systematically asking whether each decision moves the country closer to or further from low-carbon growth and climate resilience.
The factor of federalism
- There is another dimension essential for a climate law tailored to India: ensuring that the law works effectively within Indian federalism.
- Many areas relevant to climate action, from urban policy to agriculture and water fall under the authority of sub-national governments – States or local levels, and electricity also is a concurrent subject.
- An Indian climate law must simultaneously set a framework for coherent national action while decentralising sufficiently to empower States and local governments, and enable them with information and finance to take effective action.
- Finally, the enabling role should ideally also extend beyond government. Business, civil society and communities, particularly those on the frontlines of climate impacts, have essential knowledge to bring to energy transition and resilience.
Conclusion
Finding ways of enabling participation in decision making would enable all these sections of society to bring their knowledge to the table in addressing climate change. An effective Indian climate law based on enabling procedures would also provide opportunities for voice to diverse segments of society.
