| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Implications of the UGC’s regulatory framework on the autonomy of states in higher education governance. Conclusion: Way forward |
The recent draft of UGC Regulations, 2025, particularly concerning the appointment of vice-chancellors (V-Cs) in state universities, has sparked intense debates over federalism in higher education. The government continues to rely on contentious provisions like the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which shifted education from the State List to the Concurrent List. The proposed regulations further centralize control, eroding states’ authority and threatening the federal structure.
Impact of the UGC’s Regulatory Framework on State Autonomy
- Erosion of State Authority in Appointing V-Cs
- The draft regulations give governors (as chancellors) exclusive control over V-C appointments, sidelining state governments.
- The proposed selection committee structure—with UGC and governor’s nominees—reduces state influence, fostering centralization.
- The removal of the requirement for prior teaching or research experience raises concerns about politicization.
- Conflict Between Governors and State Governments
- Historical tensions over governors’ discretionary powers have led to governance deadlocks in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
- The Justice Sarkaria Commission and the Commission on Centre-State Relations have warned against governors’ extensive roles in university governance.
- Legislative attempts to curtail governors’ powers in states like Gujarat succeeded, whereas similar efforts in Opposition-ruled states have faced obstruction.
- Delegated Legislation Undermining Federalism
- Supreme Court rulings granting primacy to UGC regulations over state university laws challenge state legislatures’ authority.
- Delegated legislation, created by executive bodies rather than elected representatives, bypasses democratic processes.
- Increasing Contractualization and Corporate Influence
- Removal of the 10% cap on contractual appointments in higher education mirrors ad-hoc recruitment trends like Agniveers and lateral entry in civil services.
- Allowing HEIs to recruit industry professionals as professors risks corporate interference and faculty fragmentation.
- Centre’s Limited Financial Commitment
- States bear nearly 76% of education expenditure, yet central policies dictate university governance.
- The Centre’s increasing withdrawal from financial responsibility weakens its justification for regulatory overreach.
Conclusion
A more cooperative approach, respecting both national standards and regional autonomy, is essential to maintain educational diversity and innovation.
