Clean up professional education

While most issues should be sorted out by this Bench, there would be nothing wrong if each state government were to be asked to set up an appeal committee which should consist of one government nominee, one distinguished academic and one ex-judge nominated by the chief justice of the concerned high court. Whenever there is a dispute, this body which may be asked to intervene.

Coming to the issue in hand, while both the problem of quotas and fees would be determined by the Supreme Court, one more thing too needs to be ensured. Before the judgement is given by the Court, the concerned bodies— the HRD ministry, the state governments and the three professional bodies set up by the HRD ministry — need to present their respective points of view before the Court. The three professional bodies referred to above are the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC).

Apart from their points of view with regard to the issues at hand, the participation of these bodies is vital from another point of view. One of the aspects the Court would have to address, in addition to whatever else it does, would be to define the concept of “profiteering”. This is something about which these bodies can be profitably consulted. An attempt in this direction had been made in the draft amendment of the UGC Act which the present writer had worked out at the request of the ministry of HRD half a decade ago. For reasons best known to the ministry, the Amended UGC Bill has not been brought before the Parliament with the negative fallout we see today. Now that the Court is considering the matter afresh, it would do well to take a decision even with regard to “profiteering”.

The root cause of what is happening is the shameless desire of some 10 per cent or so promoters to make money out of this business. This cannot be allowed. If a way can be found to punish this proclivity, the situation would undergo a spectacular change. But for this ugly aspect, private initiative is playing a useful and progressive role. Also, after having defined “profiteering” as a concept, the Court would do well to lay down that each professional institution finalises its audited accounts by April 30 each year. The job of evaluating them should be done by an independent agency.

It is also for the Court to examine the question of awarding some other kind kind of punishment to the guilty institution. Depending upon the gravity of the case, that institution may be heavily fined for having tried to misuse or manipulate the funds. The fine can be as high as 5 to 10 times of the amount sought to be manipulated. No one should be allowed to exploit the genuine desire of aspiring students to join a professional course. In order to prevent any miscarriage of justice, the matter can always be referred to the court of appeal for a final decision.

It is important to straighten out this issue fairly and with an eye on the future. Today, India is sending more students to American universities than China does. More than 60,000 of them are to be found in the US at any given time, most of them in professional courses. The data in respect of other foreign countries like UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and so on, is not included. Even if the expenditure per head is taken at Rs 15 lakh per year, the amount being spent abroad would run into a mind-boggling figure. Even if half of it could be diverted to the development of professional education in India, a substantial number of Indian universities and colleges would achieve world class standards within years.

The writer is a well-known educationist