Instead of enabling close coordination with states to improve educational standards, the UGC draft regulations will marginalise the role of states and curtail diversity
Published Date – 15 February 2025, 08:39 PM
By Nayakara Veeresha
On 6 January, the Union Minister of Education unveiled the ‘Draft UGC (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) Regulations, 2025. It seeks to supersede the existing UGC Regulations 2018.
However, the 2025 Draft fails to explain or provide the reasons for bringing this new regulation. This has given rise to doubts and apprehensions among the academia about the intent and motivation behind the new draft regulations. Most significantly, it has widened the trust deficit between the Centre and the States in the context of already strained Union-State relations on the devolution of funds.
The critical areas of dissent include the nullification of the States’ role in the governance of Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) with emphasis on giving primacy to the Chancellor in the selection of Vice-Chancellor (VC), teachers, library and academic staff recruitment of a university. The dissatisfaction among the State governments includes those of allies of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) such as the AIADMK, the JD(U), the BJD and the TDP along with opposition parties of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
UGC must consult the State governments to prevent the making of HEIs as a site of political conflict between the academia, industry and public administrators
On February 6, Education Ministers of six States — Kerala, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand called the Draft Regulations, 2025, an undemocratic and grave threat to the federal features of the Constitution in a Higher Education Minister’s conclave in Bengaluru. A 15-point resolution was adopted at the end of the conclave and sent to the Union Government. In addition to this, Karnataka Chief Minister K Siddaramaiah wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to halt the process of enactment of UGC Draft Regulations, 2025.
Constitutional Position
The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution provides Union, State and Concurrent list delineating the legislative domain and competence of the different units of the government. Among the Union List, No. 66 empowers the Union to make laws on ‘Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions’.
Accordingly, the new Draft Regulations, 2025, falls under the same and is well within the legal competence of the Centre. Similarly, State List No. 25 empowers the States to legislate on ‘Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I’.
Reading both these provisions, it is clear that the legislative competence in matters of education, in general, and higher education, in particular, is not the exclusive domain of either Union or State government/s. Having inferred this, it is significant to note that the ‘determination of standards in the institutions of higher education’ clearly specified in the Union List and the State List on Education is subjected to these provisions. The legislation-making on the subjects enlisted in the Concurrent List is the responsibility of both Union and State governments. It’s a shared responsibility and the role of the Union and State governments are co-equal but not hierarchical in nature.
Provisions of Regulations
The UGC has kept Draft Regulations, 2025, in the public domain for feedback from the citizens till February end. The curious question is why did the Union Ministry of Education and the UGC not send the draft to all the States as part of consultative mechanism before putting up the same for feedback from the citizenry. This conduct raises serious doubts and apprehension among the academia as they tend to lose relative autonomy in the governance of HEIs, especially by the respective State governments.
This is understood given the nature of the Draft Regulations, 2025, especially the Sections 10 (Selection Procedure for the Appointment of Vice-Chancellor in Universities), 9 (Professor of Practice), 3.8 (Notable contributions of Teachers), 7 (Selection Procedure for the appointment of Principal), 3.9 (Notable contributions of Librarians) and 3.10 (Notable contributions of Academic Staff).
The powers of the States are being taken away in appointing the Search cum Selection Committee and its Chairperson, especially in a State-funded university. (see infographics)
The reduction of States’ powers in the appointment of Vice Chancellor in a State University amounts to coercive action rather than practising the principles of cooperative federalism. This is contentious and clearly an encroachment upon the States’ purview of the legislative domain. Such an intrusion only creates a rift in the already strained Union-State relations and affects the federal design of the Constitution.
The Constitution is unique in terms of being a flexible federation, meaning the ability to function as federal in normal times and unitary in crisis/emergency conditions. The question is what is that emergency or crisis situation that the Union government or the UGC is perceiving to come up with this kind of draft regulations aiming to disrupt the normative functioning of the universities in our country? Is there a larger political agenda behind these unreasonable acts? Antonio Gramsci’s ‘politics of hegemony’ is at its best in this context wherein the academic discourse and its institutions are being targeted under the pretext of ‘modernisation’/globalisation of education.
Reductionist Approach
The alteration of the criterion from ‘distinguished academician’ to ‘distinguished person’ to be eligible for the VC appointment indicates the tectonic shift from ‘specific’ to ‘generic’ approach. This is purely a bureaucratic/mechanical-oriented perspective wherein the universities were viewed as administrative units rather than the learning centres of human excellence.
The alteration of criterion from ‘distinguished academician’ to ‘distinguished person’ to be eligible for the VC appointment indicates the tectonic shift from ‘specific’ to ‘generic’ approach
Such a reductionist approach is counter-productive to the nation which is aiming to achieve the status of ‘Vishwaguru’. The notion of a generic vs specialist approach is widely prevalent in civil services or in administration in which such an overview or comprehensive understanding of the different areas of human life is a prerequisite to excel in the field of public administration/management. The same kind of approach in the field of education in general and higher education in particular needs serious debate although it consists of the potentiality to include multiple stakeholders (industry, public administration/public policy) as an additional criterion for the VC selection.
The idea on the face of it is not entirely bad. However, it requires meaningful discussion and deliberation among the Union and State governments, universities, former and current VCs, UGC and the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Section 10 of the Draft Regulations, 2025, gives primacy to the Chancellor (Governor) in the selection of VC as s/he is given the power to constitute the Search cum Selection Committee. The power extension goes beyond this and says that the nominee of the Visitor (President in Central University)/Chancellor Governor in State University) shall be the Chairperson of the Search cum Selection Committee. This is the most serious issue in the context of the National Education Policy (NEP) where it seeks to establish a robust governance mechanism for the selection of VCs and teaching staff to the universities.
The role of State governments is alienated in the process of centralising the recruitment processes of HEIs. It added that the persons “at a senior level in industry, public administration, public policy and/or public sector undertakings” are eligible for the appointment as VC in university. This is in consonance with the NEP, 2020, provision (Section 19.4) wherein it envisages the selection of “all leadership positions and Heads of institutions will be offered to persons with high academic qualifications and demonstrated administrative and leadership capabilities” through the Board of Governors and Eminent Expert Committee.
Cooperative Federalism
The provisions in the other sections (9,7, 3.8-3.10) also require discussion and debate, especially the abstract nature of the areas mentioned in the ‘notable contributions’ for the appointment and promotion of teaching, library and academic staff. These sections need more clarity and accuracy; otherwise, they are vulnerable to misuse by self-serving individuals in the HEIs.
The capture of States’ legitimate rights in VC appointments, reduction of States’ role in the constitution of Search cum Selection Committee indicate centralisation policy of the ruling regime
The decision to introduce a decentralised evaluative mechanism in place of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) system is a welcome idea. However, the same lacks proper mechanism owing to the too much discretion to the colleges/universities to develop their own system of evaluation to check the quality of publications and contributions of the faculty and other staff. This aligns with the ‘rolling back of the state’ from its main role as a regulatory system. The UGC is clearly deviating from its mandate in proposing this mechanism.
The provision of non-requirement of basic degree in the core subject for the appointment of Assistant Professors is yet another area of concern. The intent behind this seems to be at the right place; however, it deprives the right of those who studied core subjects at the Master’s level thereby benefitting only those who got specialisation. This may be plausible for the ICSSR research institutes — (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies [CSDS]), Delhi; Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (GIPE), Pune; and Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bengaluru) that are engaging in inter-disciplinary research. Implementing this idea in universities in its present form might widen the disciplinary boundaries but without a strong foundation on the subject.
The provision of non-requirement of basic degree in the core subject for the appointment of Assistant Professors deprives the right of those who studied core subjects at the Master’s level thereby benefitting only those who got specialisation
The capture of States’ legitimate rights in the VC appointments, reduction of States’ role in the constitution of the Search cum Selection Committee, and giving primacy to the Governor (primarily an appointee of Union government) in the recruitment process of VC and teaching staff indicate centralisation policy of the ruling regime. The formulation of the determination of standards in the HEIs has to emanate from the larger discussion among the various stakeholders such as students, parents, universities (Public, Private and Deemed to be), VCs, research institutes and civil society.
Union Minister of Education Dharmendra Pradhan in an X post said, “the UGC draft regulations aim to broaden horizons, not narrow them. They seek to include more voices, not silence them. They uphold institutional autonomy and our linguistic diversity. They strengthen our academic institutions, not weaken them”.
True, horizons are aimed to broaden. However, the inclusion of more voices, upholding the institutional autonomy of the universities and strengthening of academic institutions is unsubstantiated by facts and ground reality. To make all this a reality, the Union Minister must revisit the draft in light of different State governments’ objections without any political bias while considering the concerns and grievances of the same to stand in the spirit of cooperative federalism.
It’s not that the States (ruled by NDA and UPA regimes) are reluctant to embrace the envisaged changes in the HEIs but it’s how the UGC and the Ministry of Education are trying to bring them without the active involvement of the States, and formulating the regulations accordingly is the real concern.
(The author is Assistant Professor, SVD Siddhartha Law College, Vijayawada. Views are personal)