In recent days, debates among politicians and academicians have resurfaced over moving education back to the state list. These discussions seem prompted by controversies surrounding centrally conducted exams such as NEET, NET, and CUET, which have been riddled with paper leaks, impersonation, grace marks, corruption, and other irregularities. The debate over education being in the concurrent list carries strong political undertones. States opposing it are largely ruled by opposition parties, which at times use the issue for vote-bank politics.The British introduced the Govt of India Act, 1935, which for the first time established a federal structure in the country. Legislative subjects were divided between the federal govt (present-day Union) and the provinces (now states). Education, seen as an important “public good”, was placed in the provincial list. After independence, this continued, and education was included in the state list under the Constitution’s distribution of powers.Following the Emergency in 1975, the Congress govt set up the Swaran Singh Committee to recommend constitutional amendments. One was to move education to the concurrent list, allowing the Union govt to frame national education policies. This led to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, which shifted education from the state to the concurrent list, though no rationale was given for the move. Even before the 42nd Amendment, Entries 65 and 66 of the Union list gave the Centre powers to set up professional, vocational, and training institutions and regulate standards in higher education and research, which was how the University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in the 1950s.After the Emergency ended in 1977, the Janata govt came to power and introduced the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) to reverse several changes made by the 42nd Amendment. One was to return ‘education’ to the state list. While it passed in the Lok Sabha, it failed in the Rajya Sabha, so education remained in the concurrent list. The 1983 Sarkaria Commission, set up by the Govt of India to study Centre-state relations, recommended maintaining the status quo.However, it advised that the Union govt consult states before legislating on concurrent list subjects.Education, as a concurrent subject, is a shared responsibility. While the Centre sets national policies, states adapt and implement them based on local needs and resources. Central and state govts can enact laws on education. However, in case of a conflict, the central law prevails unless the state law has received the President’s assent, in which case it can take effect. This ensures uniformity and smoother coordination in implementing education-related laws.Concurrent jurisdiction in education covers areas such as curriculum, pedagogy, teacher training, vocational and adult education, infrastructure, standards, and quality assurance. Central and state govts can frame policies and regulations in these domains, and the shared status enables collaboration to achieve common goals in the education sector. It also allows both govts to monitor institutions for compliance with laws and standards.Funding, too, is shared, with the central govt providing support through grants and schemes.Those advocating for shifting education back to the state list offer several arguments. States, they say, bear 75% of education-related expenditure and should have greater authority to regulate educational institutions without interference from the Centre. Also, restoring education to state control would enhance autonomy, allowing them to frame policies tailored to local aspirations. States would have the freedom to launch new schemes and develop educational models suited to their regions without waiting for central approval.This flexibility could lead to more creative approaches to learning and teaching.Accountability is another factor. When states design their own policies, they are more likely to take responsibility for their success or failure. Also, central policies such as NEET, CUET, and the NEP conflict with state-level frameworks designed to meet regional needs. Those in favour of keeping education in the concurrent list say the Centre plays an important role in ensuring standards and equal access to quality education.Many states lack the resources to improve quality and enrolment, especially in higher education, which central involvement helps address through targeted schemes and financial support. A standardised national curriculum is also essential to align youth skills with the demands of a pan-India and global job market.It would also enable the Centre to address emerging national and global issues such as sustainability, climate change, digital literacy, and AI with suitable policies, while accommodating state-specific concerns. Central leadership offers policy direction, supervision, and consistency in implementation across institutions. Ten years before the 1976 shift, the Kothari Commission advocated for a common national educational framework to promote national integration and cultural exchange.A balance between national standards and state flexibility supports both unity and diversity. The concurrent list status also allows the Centre to establish and manage institutions of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, NITs, and AIIMS, whose innovation and research have a global impact.At the core of the issue lie two competing needs: national coordination and standards, and greater state autonomy and flexibility. A possible way forward may lie in reconciling the two through “collaborative federalism”, a concept recommended by the Kothari Commission. Under this model, the Centre can set broad national policies, standards, and guidelines, while allowing states the autonomy to adapt and implement them based on local needs.Many of the arguments made for shifting education to the state list, such as tailoring policies to regional demands, can still be achieved under the concurrent list if collaborative mechanisms are implemented.With many states struggling to fund their universities, the concurrent list enables the Union govt to offer financial and technical support while ensuring states have the resources to manage their systems effectively. What truly matters is not where education sits constitutionally, but how well the principles of federalism are applied to improve the quality of education and research nationwide. The way forward lies in collaboration, not confrontation.(The writer is a former member of the Union Public Service Commission and former Vice Chancellor of Anna University.)