Demand for Restoring ‘Education’ to the State List

Indian Political System(MPPCS) Centre - State Relations

06-Jul-25

Context:

The ongoing debate over whether education should be shifted back from the Concurrent List to the State List, reignites discussions about federalism and governance in India’s education system.

What is the State List?

The State List, defined in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, contains subjects on which only State Governments can legislate. These subjects include areas like policing, public health, agriculture, and local governance—issues that are better managed at the local level.
Currently, Education is listed under the Concurrent List, meaning both the Centre and States can legislate on it.

Background: The Listing of Education

Pre-Independence: The Government of India Act, 1935 placed education under the Provincial Legislative List.
Post-Independence: The original Constitution of 1950 placed education in the State List.
1976 Shift: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, based on recommendations from the Swaran Singh Committee, moved education to the Concurrent List, without providing a clear rationale.
44th Amendment: An attempt to reverse certain changes made by the 42nd Amendment, but it was not fully enacted.

Arguments for Moving Education Back to the State List

Original Constitutional Intent:
Education was originally a state subject, reflecting the belief that local governments are better placed to address educational needs and regional diversity.
Restoring Federal Balance:
The move to the Concurrent List undermined federal principles. Returning education to the State List would reaffirm cooperative federalism.
Localized Policy-Making:
States can design context-specific education policies suited to their cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic realities.
Financial Responsibility:
States bear about 85% of education expenditure. Granting them legislative control would align spending with decision-making.
Contextual Merit Assessment:
Uniform exams like NEET fail to account for diverse educational backgrounds. States need autonomy in setting admission standards.
Greater Accountability:
Local control would enhance transparency and responsiveness in managing educational institutions.
Reduced Policy Conflicts:
Central policies often clash with state initiatives, leading to implementation issues. State control can streamline decision-making.

Arguments for Keeping Education in the Concurrent List

Reason	Explanation
Uniform Standards & Equity	The Centre can ensure minimum standards and access for marginalized groups.
Skill Alignment with National Job Market	A national curriculum supports standardized skills, boosting employability across states, as emphasized by FICCI.
Addressing National Challenges	Issues like climate change and digital literacy require national curricula with localized adaptations.
Fostering National Integration	A common education framework promotes unity, cultural exchange, and mobility, aligning with the Kothari Commission recommendations.
Poor Educational Outcomes at State Level	Reports like ASER 2023 reveal poor foundational learning in many states—e.g., many 14–18-year-olds struggle with basic math and reading.
Regulation of National Institutions	Central oversight ensures that institutions like IITs and AIIMS maintain consistent, high-quality standards.

Global Examples of Educational Governance

Country	Governance Model
USA	Education is mainly managed by state and local governments, with the federal government overseeing funding and policy.
Canada	Provinces have exclusive control over education.
Germany	Education is governed by individual states (Länder).
South Africa	The national government sets policies, while provinces implement and adapt them to local needs.

Way Forward and Conclusion

Rather than debating exclusive control, the focus should be on collaborative federalism, as suggested by the Kothari Commission (1964-66).
Key recommendations include:

Balancing national standards with state flexibility.
Outcome-based funding (NITI Aayog).
Decentralized school management (RTE Act, 2009).
Reform of teacher training and deployment (TSR Subramanian Committee, 2009).
Development of standardized national assessments with state-specific benchmarks.

Conclusion:

Education governance in India should aim to harmonize national priorities with regional autonomy to improve learning outcomes, ensure equity, and uphold the federal structure.