A new set of draft regulations put out by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for the appointment of Vice Chancellors as well as for filling up academic and non-academic posts has stirred up a storm. On January 6, the Union Minister for Education, Dharmendra Pradhan, launched the draft version of the proposed UGC regulations (“Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education”) along with the “Draft Guidelines on Cadre Ratio, Period of Probation & Confirmation, Leaves, Teaching Days, Academic Research and Administrative Commitments, Seniority and Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges”.

This combination of regulations and guidelines (UGC 2025) is expected to replace the existing “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education” notified in 2018 (UGC 2018). This is among a slew of drafts of new regulations and guidelines that the UGC has put out in recent times as part of an aggressive push to implement the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP 2020).

In December 2024, the UGC issued the Draft UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of Undergraduate Degree and Postgraduate Degree) Regulations, 2024, the Draft Guidelines for Implementation of Recognition for Prior Learning (RPL) in Higher Education, and Guidelines for the Introduction of Skill-based courses and Micro-credentials in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and SOP for Implementation. On January 3, the UGC also issued a public notice on “Grading of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on Implementation of National Education Policy (NEP) 2020”, which seeks to put in place a framework for assessing the progress made by HEIs in implementing NEP 2020. This, in turn, will determine the granting of privileges and entitlements under various UGC regulations.

State opposition

The State governments of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka have vehemently opposed the latest regulations and guidelines, describing them as anti-federal and alleging that they infringe on the constitutional rights of States and undermine the academic integrity, autonomy and development of State-run universities. The Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution moved by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on January 9 registering strong opposition to the draft regulations and guidelines on the grounds that they would affect the robust education system in the State and “ruin” universities. All political parties, except the BJP, supported it. Stalin also wrote to his counterparts in non-BJP ruled States highlighting the inherent drawbacks of the draft regulations and urged them to pass similar resolutions.

All three State governments have requested the Centre to put the draft regulations on hold. They argue that these guidelines restrict the role of the State governments in the appointment of Vice Chancellors and in the administrative procedures related to admissions, which fall directly within the domain of the State governments, considering that 85 per cent of the revenue expenditure on education is spent by States.

On January 20, Stalin wrote to Pradhan urging him to withdraw the UGC regulations of both 2024 and 2025, pointing out that several provisions in the draft are in conflict with the State’s education system and policies. Stalin’s letter expresses concerns about common entrance examinations for undergraduate and postgraduate courses; a single entrance exam for the whole country; allowing students to pursue any degree irrespective of their secondary stream; the four-year degree programmes; multiple entry and exit systems; cross-disciplinary teachers; and the exclusion of State governments in the procedures to appoint Vice Chancellors.

Stalin’s letter draws attention to the proposed criteria for the appointment of Vice Chancellors. Whereas the role of the Vice Chancellor requires deep academic expertise and understanding of the higher education system, the eligibility criteria in the new draft regulations include individuals with experience of industry, public administration, and public policy, thus raising “serious concerns”. On the exclusion of State governments from the search committee to appoint a Vice Chancellor, the letter records: “The State government’s participation in the selection process of VC is critical to ensuring that the genuine aspirations of the State, local educational needs, policies and affirmative action measures are appropriately considered.”

On January 14, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan wrote to Pradhan registering his government’s opposition to the draft regulations. In his letter, a copy of which is with Frontline, Vijayan writes that he was “unable to fathom the need to exclude the State Governments from the selection process of Vice Chancellors, that too under a regulation under a Union List”. He points out the historical context in which education came to be in the Concurrent List through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency of 1975-77 without so much as a debate on the issue. He further refers to B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly while allaying the apprehensions of members who were opposed to the inclusion of education in the Union List. Vijayan’s letter quotes Ambedkar’s explanation of the intention behind Entry 66 (earlier Entry 57A) of the Union List: “Entry 57A merely dealt with the maintenance of certain standards in certain classes of institutions imparting higher education, scientific and technical institutions, research etc.”

Impact on educational standards

The letter also points out that entries in the State and the Concurrent Lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution make it clear that all matters pertaining to universities, except those explicitly mentioned in Entry 66, that is, coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education or research and in scientific and technical institutions, were not in the Union List. The intention behind Entry 66 was limited in scope and did not envisage running the universities through regulations framed under the UGC Act, 1956, to the exclusion of State Acts. It had a limited purpose of ensuring uniform educational standards across States.

Further, Vijayan points out that the UGC regulations “which undergo very frequent changes, introduce many clauses, which are obviously beyond what is intended by the makers of the Constitution”. The present draft regulations seem to envisage “keeping the States totally out of the picture in the appointment of VC, by framing provisions in such a manner that the State government cannot have expert members as its nominees in the Search-cum-Selection committee of Vice Chancellors”. The Kerala Assembly passed a resolution against the UGC 2025 regulations on January 21.

M.C. Sudhakar, the Minister for Higher Education, government of Karnataka, voiced similar concerns, describing the provisions as a direct assault on the federal structure. He also wrote to Pradhan urging the UGC to engage in a dialogue with State governments before proposing any changes. The legality of the interventions in the selection process of Vice Chancellors, especially by Governors, has been questioned earlier as well. It is not just the non-BJP-ruled States that have opposed the regulations and guidelines. It is learnt that there is some disquiet among National Democratic Alliance allies like the Janata Dal (United), the Telugu Desam Party, and the Lok Jan Shakti Party (Ram Vilas) as the regulations effectively truncate the role of elected State governments in higher education.

One of the most controversial provisions in the UGC 2025 Regulations relates to the procedure of appointment of Vice Chancellors. That such appointments have come to be increasingly governed by non-academic considerations, with the political and ideological leanings of the individual concerned being an almost decisive factor, is already a major issue. Such appointments, in turn, affect the quality of faculty in universities, given the powers that the UGC Regulations vest in Vice Chancellors to determine the composition of selection committees for faculty appointments. The UGC 2025 regulations may magnify these problems by increasing the scope for non-academics to be appointed as Vice Chancellors and by centralising the control over appointments in all universities, even those created by State legislatures and funded by State governments, in the hands of the Central government.

Under UGC 2018, the requirement for a Vice Chancellor was “a minimum of ten years’ of experience as Professor in a University or ten years’ of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation”. UGC 2025 adds a third category, namely “ten years’ experience at a senior level in industry, public administration, public policy and/or public sector undertakings”.

The difference between the present and the previous set of regulations is stark. The UGC 2018 regulations had specified that the Visitor/Chancellor would appoint the Vice Chancellor from a panel recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The composition of such a committee is usually defined in the Act or in statutes of the university concerned. While the only related proviso in the UGC 2018 regulations was that one member had to be nominated by the UGC Chairman for the selection of Vice Chancellors of State, private, and deemed-to-be universities, UGC 2025 not only fixes the number and composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for all universities but also makes it mandatory for all universities to adhere to this in the selection process of Vice Chancellors.

According to UGC 2025, the committee will comprise: “a) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who shall be the Chairperson of the Search cum Selection Committee. b) a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission. c) a nominee of the apex body of the university, such as the Syndicate/Senate/Executive Council/Board of Management/equivalent Body of the University.” If implemented, this will override provisions in the statutes of Central universities.

Sanjay Bohidar, a retired professor of economics from Delhi University, pointed out that the statutes of both Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University specify that in addition to the nominee of the Visitor, two members of the Search Committee are nominated by the university’s Executive Council. He said that in the case of State universities, while some may already have the composition laid out as specified in the UGC 2025 Regulations, these would amount to undermining the powers of State legislatures to define the composition of these committees. Most importantly, it will cement the control of the Central government over appointments of Vice Chancellors in universities.

Typically, the President of India is the Visitor/Chancellor in the case of Central Universities, and the Governor in the case of State Universities. Both offices act in accordance with the advice of the government concerned. Increasingly, Governors seem to be acting under the instructions of the Central government.

Frontline spoke to university teacher representatives who said that unlike previous occasions when such replacements of existing regulations took place, the UGC 2025 Regulations were not linked with any revision of their pay scales. Usually, in a process that runs parallel with that of Pay Commissions for Central government employees, the Pay Review Committees constituted by the UGC also make recommendations on the service conditions of teachers. It is the reports of such committees that formed the basis for the notification of the 2018 UGC Regulations as well as those notified in 2010 and 2000. No such process, the teachers said, including the accompanying scrutiny and deliberations, had preceded the formulation of the present set of draft regulations.

Abha Dev Habib, secretary of the Democratic Teachers’ Front, Delhi University, said that the draft regulations are “decoupled” from pay revision and align recruitment and promotion with the NEP 2020. She told Frontline that these regulations will enable institutions to hire people outside academia, in a sort of lateral entry, through diluted recruitment norms and “notable contributions”.

The draft regulations also stipulate that teachers have to meet certain criteria for their appointments and promotion. The minimum criteria involve meeting four out of nine listed “notable contributions”, which, incidentally, includes “Teaching-Learning and Research in Indian Knowledge Systems”. Habib, who teaches physics in a prominent Delhi University college, said that these “notable contributions” also include securing funding for research, infrastructure, startups, promoting online education, getting internships for students, and setting up laboratories. She said that this prioritising of non-academic activities effectively undermined teaching and research.

Additionally, teachers are expected to mobilise resources from external agencies and undertake “innovative” activities that were not specifically defined. It is feared that many of these provisions will be used to block the career prospects of academics whose fields of study and research do not automatically produce such “notable contributions” and who are not ideologically aligned with the ruling party at the Centre. While the draft regulations reiterate the principle that short-term contract appointments against vacancies should be done only when essential, they also open up the possibility of increasing the proportion of such appointments by removing the cap of 10 per cent that is part of the UGC 2018 Regulations.

Curiously, all matters incorporated within the UGC 2018 Regulations have been divided up into the UGC 2025 Regulations and the separate guidelines issued along with it. The reasons for this division into two separate categories with differences in their legal status are not quite clear from the UGC’s public notice on the same.

The intentions behind these new regulations, therefore, are suspect in the eyes of many. What is feared by many academics is that even the apparent “flexibilities” introduced in matters of appointments and promotions of teachers, some of which may otherwise may be welcomed and help in reducing bureaucratic hurdles, are more likely to be abused to dilute standards when the power to make use of these flexibilities is governed by non-academic considerations—where “qualifications” of teachers and “standards” are defined in ideological and political terms.

(T.K. Rajalakshmi is Senior Deputy Editor with Frontline. Courtesy: Frontline, a fortnightly English language magazine published by The Hindu Group of publications headquartered in Chennai, India.)