Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Kerala education Act: a model for the nation

K.N. Panikkar

Consensus in matters such as education is desirable, but not always possible. That, however, should not impede society from advancing towards social justice and equality. The government's duty is to pave the way for it.

THE KERALA Professional Colleges Act (KPC ACT), 2006, passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly on July 2 has been a bone of contention between the State Government and the managements of private professional colleges. The latter approached the High Court, which ordered status quo in matters of admission for this year without going into the substantive issue of the validity of the Act. The State Government has preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the Kerala High Court, which is slated for hearing on Monday, August 7.

The KPC Act was the outcome of popular mandate, reflected in the 2006 elections to the State Assembly in which unethical practices followed by the managements of private educational institutions had figured as a prominent issue. That the Assembly took steps to place the KPC Act on the statute book in the very first session of the Assembly with the full support of the Opposition was a measure of the strength of the popular will.

The significance of the Act, however, is not limited to the control it sought to exercise over the highly unethical state of professional education. It heralded the possibility of a new educational culture in a society in which equity and excellence had given way to the power of lucre and political influence. The Act with its focus on merit and social justice as the criteria for admission to professional courses was widely perceived as a welcome beginning. It was believed that the new initiative in the professional education sector would eventually lead to a complete overhauling of the existing system of education. That it has aroused apprehensions in several quarters is not the least surprising; education after all is one of the main props that enable the perpetuation of social power.

In the existing system, the private managements controlled a major chunk of the available opportunities. The exorbitant tuition fees and capitation charges have made these institutions much more lucrative than what their name, self-financing, suggests. In fact, they are a source of profit greater than what other investments can provide. Capitation charges are openly demanded and obtained, ranging from Rs.30 lakh to Rs.40 lakh for admission to medical colleges and slightly lower for engineering. Needless to say, the access to these institutions is restricted to a select segment of society, which, in turn, is interested in perpetuating this system. The opposition to the KPC Act, expressed in the legal wrangle, is motivated both by mercenary considerations and social interests. That they are able to draw support from a variety of patrons is not the least surprising. Religious and political leaders have rallied behind them. The Bishops of seven Christian denominations have addressed a pastoral letter and have exhorted the believers to launch a liberation struggle on the lines of the movement of 1959. Their appeal did not arouse any enthusiasm, as the political consciousness in Kerala has undergone a sea change since 1959. In fact, the members of many a parish openly objected to the attempt of their religious leaders to oppose the Act. The common man in Kerala has realised the Act is a symbol of his empowerment.

What aroused the ire of the managements and the forces supporting them are mainly three provisions of the KPC Act: 1) Procedure for admission; 2) Regulation of fees; 3) Reservation based distribution of seats. The Act provides that "admission of students in all professional colleges or institutions to all seats, except non-resident Indian seats, shall be made through common entrance test conducted by the state followed by centralised counselling through a single window system." This introduces fairness and transparency in the procedure, which ensures opportunity for the meritorious. At the same time it eliminates the possible manipulations that appear to have been so rampant in the selection to the management list.

Secondly, the Act through a fee regulatory committee allowed uncontrolled management fee only for the 15 per cent admitted from among the non-resident Indians. This is a crucial factor as it considerably bridled the mercenary interests of the management. Thirdly, the Act ensured the social distribution of seats in conformity with the nationally accepted norms of reservation. It meant that 10 per cent shall be earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, 25 per cent for socially and educationally backward classes, three per cent for the physically challenged, one per cent for cultural achievement, one per cent for sportspersons, and another 12 per cent for those who were not covered by the above. When the 15 per cent management quota and the 15 per cent NRI quota are also factored in, only 18 per cent was available to those who actually wield social and political power. This naturally tends to upset the existing equilibrium. All these factors along with the apprehension about the minority interest in certain quarters emboldened the managements to challenge the Act in the court. Incidentally the Act in no way impinges upon the rights of the minority to establish and run educational institutions.

When approached by the managements the Kerala High Court did not set aside the Act. The reason the Court gave was that "there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutional validity of any legislation and unless the same is set aside after final hearing, normally the operation of the Act would not be stayed." Nevertheless the Court decided to follow the provisions of the impugned Act of 2004 for which the justification given was "that the Court should not abrogate its duty of granting interim relief when justice may so require." Justice is then handed out to 50 per cent students admitted by the management "who cannot be made to suffer an untold misery with which they would certainly be afflicted if the admissions are upset at this stage." It was reported to the Court that the test conducted by the managements for the admission of these students was not in conformity with accepted norms and was without transparency. It is intriguing that the Court did not show any concern for the interests of the 85 per cent students who were sought to be admitted through the admission test conducted by the government. The verdict of the Court unfortunately provides legitimacy to a system that has been the target of universal condemnation except by those who are its beneficiaries. There is something amiss in the considerations that led the court to this conclusion.

The essence of the matter is that the existing system is unjust and undefendable. The government has a duty to the people of the State from which it should not shy away, even in the face of concerted opposition of vested interests. It is apparent that the managements had not conducted the test according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the Inamdar case. The failure of the management to respect these criteria invests the government with enough freedom to intervene and to cancel the admission conducted by these institutions. The Kerala High Court also has empowered the government to take action expeditiously within a month if definite and positive material before it suggest "that the consortium test for the admission of students from medical stream was a farce and the management and the institutions indulged in profiteering at the cost of merit, they may proceed against such institutions and the students by initiating proceedings before the Chairperson of Admission Supervisory Committee or by any other means as may be permissible under law." The government, it appears, has enough leeway to implement the provisions of law. Arriving at a consensus in matters such as education is desirable, but not always possible, because of conflicting interests. That, however, should not impede society from advancing towards social justice and equality. The duty of the government is to pave the way for it.

The problem of self financing colleges, though acute, is not limited to Kerala. The other States are equally the victims of this system, as brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in the cases of TMA Pai and Inamdar. When the Kerala Act is finally placed on the statute book it can serve as a model for the nation.

(The author, an eminent historian, is former Vice-Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University, Kalady, Kerala.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A ban that was overdue
Improving delivery of public services
Kerala education Act: a model for the nation
Questions of ethics and safeguards
The conflict will damage Lebanese workers
What we still don't understand about Hizbollah
Pathak report
Office of Profit Bill
Diluting RTI Act
Cola controversy
On reservation
"For the U.S., the nuclear issue of Iran is just an excuse"

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu