Should Education be brought back to the State List?

General Studies Paper-2

Context: Recent paper leak incidents and nationwide protests gave the impetus and topic of discussion to bring back Education in India under the State List of the Indian Constitution.

Historical Background

• During British rule, the Government of India Act, 1935 established a Federal Structure in our polity, distributing legislative subjects between the Federal Legislature (now the Union) and the Provinces (now the States).
• Education, being an essential public good, was initially placed under the Provincial List.
• After independence, this arrangement continued, with education falling under the ‘State List’ in the distribution of powers.
• However, during the Emergency, the Swaran Singh Committee recommended placing ‘Education’ in the Concurrent List to facilitate all-India policies on the subject.

1. It led to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), which shifted ‘Education’ from the State list to the Concurrent List.

• 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978): The Janata Party government attempted to reverse the 42nd amendment by bringing ‘Education’ back to the State List, but it didn’t pass in the Rajya Sabha.

Key Constitutional Provisions Related to Education in India

• Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It extends to educational institutions as well.
• Right to Education (Article 21A): The Constitution recognizes the right to education as a fundamental right. It guarantees free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)Article 41: It highlights the importance of ensuring equal opportunities for education and minimising inequalities.
• Article 45: The DPSP under Article 45 emphasises that the state shall endeavour to provide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14.
• Article 46: Promotes the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other marginalised sections.

Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)

• Article 51A(j): Citizens are duty-bound to strive for excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, including education.
• Language and Education
• Article 350A: Ensures the right to instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level.
• Article 29: Protects the cultural and educational rights of minorities, including the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
• Autonomy of Educational Institutions
• Article 30: Grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
• Article 32: Provides the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including educational rights.
• Role of the State
• Article 41: The state shall make effective provisions for securing the right to work, education, and public assistance.
• Article 44: Encourages the state to promote a uniform civil code, which could impact personal laws related to education.

Arguments Favouring Education in Concurrent List

• Uniform Education Policy: Having ‘education’ in the concurrent list allows for a uniform education policy across the country.
• Improvement in Standards: Centralised policies can lead to better standards and quality.
• Synergy Between Centre and States: Collaboration between the central and state governments can enhance educational outcomes.

Arguments Against the Concurrent List of Education

• Diversity: India’s vast diversity makes a ‘one size fits all’ approach impractical.
• Corruption and Professionalism: Some argue that centralization has not necessarily addressed issues like corruption and lack of professionalism.
• Conflict and Repugnancy: The dual authority can lead to conflicts between central and state laws. When there is inconsistency or repugnancy, Article 254 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve such conflicts.
• Complexity: Managing concurrent subjects requires coordination and harmonisation. Sometimes, overlapping laws can create confusion for citizens and administrators.
• Uniformity vs. Diversity: While uniformity is desirable in some areas (e.g., criminal law), India’s diverse cultural, linguistic, and regional contexts may necessitate state-specific approaches. Striking the right balance is challenging.

International Practices

• United States: State and local governments set overall educational standards, mandate standardised tests, and supervise colleges and universities.
  • The federal education department focuses on financial aid, key educational issues, and ensuring equal access.
• Canada: Provinces manage education entirely. Each province has its own policies and systems.
• Germany: Legislative powers for education are vested in the landers (equivalent to States).
• South Africa: The country has two national departments — one for schools and another for higher education.
  • Provinces also have their own education departments to implement national policies and address local issues.

Conclusion and Way Forward

• Balancing centralization and decentralisation is crucial. While uniform policies are desirable, they must account for regional variations. Perhaps a hybrid approach, where certain aspects remain in the concurrent list while others are delegated to the States.
• There is a need to look on challenges like Access and Equity, Quality of Education, Teacher Training, Dropout Rates, and Skill Development etc ahead of education in India and the National Education Policy (2020) is the right step that focuses on Holistic Development, Multilingualism, Flexible Curriculum, Technology Integration, along with Professional Education.
• It requires thoughtful consideration of India’s unique context and the need for both national coherence and local flexibility.