Author: Sanjith Gurikar, A student at PES University
To the Point
Education and politics are intricately and inevitably intertwined, particularly in a democratic society like India. Education is not merely about the transmission of knowledge or vocational skills; it is a foundational institution that molds the civic, moral, and political consciousness of citizens. In that sense, it plays a crucial role in nurturing informed, critical, and responsible individuals who can meaningfully participate in democratic governance. Conversely, politics is the mechanism through which the goals, methods, and reach of education are determined. Through legislation, budgetary allocations, curricular design, and regulatory oversight, political institutions shape the nature and accessibility of education across the country.
This symbiotic relationship, however, can become a double-edged sword. When education serves the public interest, it empowers society. But when political interests infiltrate educational spaces, manipulate curricula, or suppress academic freedom, education becomes a tool of ideological control rather than democratic development. In such scenarios, the consequences extend beyond pedagogy—they endanger the very fabric of constitutional democracy. The politicization of education risks breeding a generation that is either uncritically indoctrinated or disillusioned, undermining the democratic ethos of debate, dissent, and diversity. India has witnessed a long-standing entanglement of political ideologies with education policy. This is evident in the frequent reshaping of school and university syllabi to reflect the worldview of the ruling government. Whether it is the inclusion or exclusion of historical figures, the sanitization of communal episodes, or the glorification of particular cultural narratives, curriculum changes have often mirrored the ideological leanings of those in power. Such changes not only violate the principle of academic neutrality but also risk eroding public trust in state educational institutions.
Political influence is also apparent in the appointments of vice-chancellors and regulatory heads, the suppression of student movements, and the use of disciplinary tools to curb dissent in university spaces. Public universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Hyderabad Central University, and Jamia Millia Islamia have been sites of both vibrant political engagement and state-sponsored clampdowns. While student politics is an essential expression of democratic participation, its politicization—often along party lines—can lead to factionalism and administrative interference, diluting the educational mission of these institutions. Moreover, the role of politicians in the private education sector cannot be overlooked. Many political actors own or control private schools and colleges, converting educational institutions into vehicles of patronage and vote consolidation. These institutions often operate with minimal regulation, and decisions about fee structures, admissions, and faculty appointments are heavily politicized.
Given this backdrop, the intersection of education and politics in India must be approached with caution and constitutional commitment. This article aims to explore the legal, institutional, and jurisprudential contours of this complex relationship. It argues for a rights-based, autonomy-driven educational model that protects institutions from partisan capture, upholds academic freedom, and aligns with the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution—especially those of liberty, equality, and secularism.
Use of Legal Jargon
The legal framework governing the intersection of education and politics in India is grounded in a robust matrix of constitutional mandates and jurisprudential principles. At its core lies the regime of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 21-A, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years. This provision, inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment, elevated education to the status of a justiciable right, reflecting the belief that an educated citizenry is essential for a functioning democracy. However, the right to education is not merely about access; it must also include the freedom to learn and think critically, which brings into play Article 19(1)(a)—the right to freedom of speech and expression—and Article 19(1)(c)—the right to form associations. These provisions protect not only academic freedom but also the rights of students, faculty, and educational institutions to engage in intellectual discourse, dissent, and unionization. When political interference curtails these freedoms—through censorship, appointment manipulation, or suppression of campus protests—it strikes at the constitutional heart of academic autonomy. Complementing these enforceable rights are the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which, though non-justiciable, set out the aspirational duties of the State. Articles 41 and 45 urge the government to provide effective education and to promote educational advancement, particularly among the socially and economically disadvantaged. These principles reflect the constitutional commitment to social justice and inclusive growth, emphasizing that education policy must prioritize equity over political expediency. However, the realization of these goals is often hindered when partisan interests dictate educational funding, curriculum priorities, or institutional appointments.
The principle of academic autonomy, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution, has evolved through judicial interpretation and is embedded in the regulatory philosophy of bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC). The Supreme Court has time and again emphasized the need for institutions of higher education to be insulated from excessive state control, particularly in matters of curriculum design, faculty recruitment, and internal governance. Autonomy is not a privilege but a precondition for quality education and meaningful research. Political encroachments—especially those driven by ideology rather than pedagogy—undermine this autonomy and reduce universities to instruments of propaganda. The foundational constitutional value of secularism is also deeply relevant in this context. As a basic feature of the Constitution, secularism mandates that the State must remain neutral in matters of religion, especially in the domain of education. Yet, there have been increasing attempts to introduce religious or ideological biases into school and university curricula, thereby threatening the pluralistic fabric of Indian education. These trends raise serious constitutional concerns about the impartiality and neutrality of educational content.
Finally, the governance of education lies within the Concurrent List (Entry 25, List III), allowing both the Union and State legislatures to legislate on the subject. While this federal arrangement enables policy innovation and decentralization, it also creates jurisdictional ambiguities and policy clashes. Centralized reforms like the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 have drawn criticism from States for encroaching on their domain, revealing the tensions inherent in a federal polity where education is both a national and regional imperative.
The Proof
In post-independence India, education has always been a political battleground. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, though hailed for its structural vision, has faced criticism for its top-down formulation and lack of Parliamentary debate. Critics argue that while the policy emphasizes skill development and multilingualism, it also contains ideological undertones—such as emphasis on ancient Indian knowledge systems—that may not be inclusive of diverse historical narratives. The appointment of Vice-Chancellors and heads of educational regulatory bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) and NCERT often mirrors the political ideology of the ruling government. Changes in history textbooks, deletions of contentious topics like caste-based discrimination or communal violence, and the glorification of certain figures over others reflect how political regimes use education as a tool of narrative control.
In university spaces, student unions have become highly politicized. Incidents at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Jamia Millia Islamia highlight how campuses can become microcosms of national political discourse. While political engagement is vital for democratic education, suppression of dissent through disciplinary actions or sedition charges raises alarms about shrinking academic freedoms. On the other end, politicians have entered education through private ownership of schools and colleges, converting educational institutions into instruments of patronage. Fee structures, admission policies, and recruitment often reflect political clout more than merit or regulation.
Case Laws and Regulatory Insights
1. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
This landmark case upheld the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30. It also affirmed the autonomy of private institutions in managing internal matters, including curriculum and staffing.
2. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645
This case recognized education as a fundamental right under Article 21, later reinforced by the 86th Constitutional Amendment introducing Article 21-A.
3. S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662
The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Aligarh Muslim University was a minority institution, igniting decades of debate over educational autonomy and political control.
4. Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1
Upheld the constitutionality of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, emphasizing the State’s duty to provide quality education.
5. Recent Developments
Delhi University Syllabus Row (2023): Faculty protests over curriculum changes reflecting ideological bias.
NCERT Textbook Revisions (2022–2024): Content on Mughal history, caste issues, and Gujarat riots was reportedly diluted or removed.
Critique
The interplay between education and politics is not inherently problematic—indeed, education is a political act in that it shapes civic consciousness. However, the Indian context reveals disturbing trends of political overreach, curricular distortion, and erosion of institutional independence. The problem becomes acute when ruling parties use state power to sanitize or reshape history, erase dissenting viewpoints, or glorify selected figures. Equally troubling is the commodification of education by political actors, turning universities into vote banks or economic fiefdoms. Political parties often sponsor student groups to assert influence on campuses, which, while promoting engagement, also leads to polarisation and stifling of dissent.
The centralization of policy-making—as seen in the NEP—threatens the federal spirit of the Constitution. States, despite being key implementers of education, have limited say in the formulation of national frameworks. This undermines regional diversity, linguistic rights, and local governance. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust regulatory mechanisms to prevent conflict of interest, nepotism, and ideological interference in educational appointments and curriculum design. The absence of Parliamentary scrutiny in major policy shifts like the NEP 2020 exemplifies this democratic deficit.
Conclusion
A healthy democracy requires education that is free, fair, and fearless. Political engagement in educational discourse is essential—but it must be guided by the principles of pluralism, academic freedom, and constitutional morality. What India needs is a firewall between political power and pedagogical authority, achieved through legal safeguards, institutional reforms, and cultural shifts in governance. There must be independent regulatory bodies for higher education appointments, transparent textbook review committees, and legally enforceable codes of academic freedom. The Supreme Court, Parliament, and civil society must act together to ensure that education remains a space for critical thinking—not ideological indoctrination. Only when educational institutions are liberated from the shadow of partisan politics can they truly empower citizens—and only then can India’s democracy sustain itself through informed, independent, and inclusive minds.
FAQS
Q1: Is political influence in education illegal in India?
Not inherently. However, excessive political interference that undermines academic autonomy or leads to discrimination can be challenged under constitutional rights, such as Article 14 or Article 19.
Q2: Can the government change school and university curricula?
Yes, through bodies like NCERT and UGC. However, such changes should follow due process and reflect diverse perspectives, not partisan narratives.
Q3: Are student unions allowed to engage in politics?
Yes, student political activity is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and (c). However, it can be regulated to prevent violence or disruption.
Q4: What legal remedies exist against political interference in education?
Writ petitions can be filed in High Courts or the Supreme Court to challenge arbitrary appointments, censorship, or academic suppression.
Q5: How can academic freedom be protected?
Through institutional autonomy, transparent governance, judicial oversight, and civil society vigilance. Legislative safeguards like an Academic Freedom Act have also been proposed.
