Draft UGC Regulations, 2025

Source: This post on Draft UGC Regulations, 2025 has been created based on article “India’s data protection rules need some fine-tuning” published in The Hindu  on 13^th January 2025.

UPSC Syllabus topic- GS Paper 3- Issues Relating to Development and Management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources.

Context: The article discusses the controversy surrounding the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, which propose significant changes to the appointment and governance of Vice Chancellors (VCs) in Indian universities. Education being a subject in the Concurrent List of the Constitution implies shared responsibility between the Centre and the States. However, the draft regulations appear to centralize authority by giving Governors, as Chancellors of most State universities, greater control over the selection of VCs.

What is the primary concern with the draft UGC regulations?

1. 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, seeks to centralize control over universities by:
   • Divesting State governments of their role in the selection process for Vice Chancellors (VCs).
   • Empowering the Chancellor (typically the Governor in most State universities) to constitute and control the search-cum-selection committee for VCs.
2. This move undermines federal principles in education, which is part of the Concurrent List, and has drawn strong opposition from several States.

How does the draft propose to select Vice Chancellors?

1. The search-cum-selection committee will comprise:
   • A nominee of the Chancellor.
   • A nominee of the UGC Chairman.
   • A nominee of the university syndicate or senate.
2. The Chancellor will appoint the VC from a shortlist of three to five candidates recommended by the committee.
3. Non-compliance with these guidelines could lead to:
   • Debarment from UGC schemes.
   • Denial of UGC funding.

Why are State governments opposing the draft?

1. Loss of Autonomy:
   • States argue the draft sidelines higher education departments in VC appointments.
   • This could lead to gubernatorial dominance in university administration.
2. Federalism Violations:
   • Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized the draft as a violation of federal principles enshrined in the Constitution.
   • Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other political entities, including the AIADMK and CPI-M, have supported this stance.
3. Impact on Universities:
   • Ongoing conflicts between State governments and Governors (e.g., in Tamil Nadu) have left many universities without leadership.
   • Centralizing appointments could exacerbate such conflicts.

What is the criticism of allowing non-academics as VCs?

1. The draft permits non-academics with at least 10 years of senior-level experience in:

• Public administration.
• Public policy.
• Public sector undertakings.

2. Critics argue this could be exploited to appoint ideologically aligned individuals, such as Sangh Parivar loyalists. However:

• Historical examples like former President K.R. Narayanan and scientist Y. Nayudamma demonstrate that non-academics can bring value to universities.
• Academic backgrounds do not always guarantee visionary leadership.

What are the positive aspects of the draft?

1. Extended Tenure for VCs:
   • Increasing the tenure from three to five years is a welcome reform, providing more stability and time for leadership.
2. Potential for Professional Expertise:
   • Including non-academics could bring diverse perspectives, though this needs to be managed transparently.

What are the recommendations for improvement?

1. Remove Anti-Federal Clauses:
   • The UGC must revise provisions that undermine State autonomy and federal principles.
2. Ensure Autonomy in University Administration:
   • Limit governmental roles to funding and elevate universities into independent institutions.
3. Allay Apprehensions:
   • Address concerns regarding non-academic appointments and potential misuse of the new framework.