UGC Draft Rules Spark Controversy

Image credits: P Ravikumar Express News Service

The University Grants Commission's (UGC) draft regulations on the appointment and promotion of university teachers and Vice-Chancellors have sparked controversy among states ruled by parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). With less than a week left for the UGC's deadline to submit feedback, states such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Karnataka have expressed their opposition to the regulations, citing concerns over the federal structure and academic autonomy. The states argue that the regulations would undermine the powers of state legislatures and weaken the autonomy of state universities.

A key concern is the UGC's proposal to play an enhanced role in the selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellors of state universities. Under the new regulations, the search-cum-selection committees would comprise nominees of the Chancellor, the UGC Chairman, and the University syndicate or senate, effectively cutting out state Higher Education departments. The Chancellor would appoint the Vice-Chancellor from the list of three to five names shortlisted by the selection committee. The UGC Chairman has argued that the proposed structure "eliminates ambiguity and ensures a more transparent process", but states oppose the centralisation of power, leaving many state universities leaderless.

Another issue is the allegation that the new regulations will dilute academic standards, increase commercialisation and politicisation, and reduce access to higher education for poor and disadvantaged students. The states have asked why they are being sidelined in university administration even while they continue to bear most of the financial costs for state-run higher education. Beyond higher education, there is a larger constitutional issue of Centre-State relations at stake: can delegated legislation such as the rules and regulations framed by the Union government and its agencies in the executive branch under a central law override the provisions of a plenary State law passed by a State legislature? The opposing states plan to send a high-level delegation to the Union Education Ministry and challenge the regulations in court, indicating a political and legal escalation of the issue.

The UGC's draft regulations have also been criticised for prioritising research publications and patents over teaching and service, potentially leading to an imbalance in academic responsibilities. The regulations overlook other valuable academic contributions like curriculum development and mentoring. The emphasis on research and publications assumes that faculty members already possess the necessary skills, which is a callous disregard for the well-being of academic staff, who are already overworked and underpaid. The regulations do not provide adequate resources or support for faculty development, particularly for early-career researchers. The academic community has expressed concerns over the regulations, citing the need for a more nuanced and inclusive framework that prioritises academic freedom, intellectual diversity, and the well-being of students and faculty alike.

The controversy surrounding the UGC's draft regulations highlights the need for a more thoughtful and consultative approach to higher education reform. The UGC must not ignore the concerns of states and the academic community, and should remove anti-federal provisions from its draft before notifying the new regulations. The issue has sparked a wider debate on the role of the Centre and states in higher education, and the need for a more balanced and inclusive approach to academic governance. As the deadline for feedback approaches, it remains to be seen how the UGC will respond to the concerns of states and the academic community, and whether the regulations will be revised to address the issues raised.