
The Supreme Court8217;s decision invalidating more than a 100 private universities in Chhattisgarh has again highlighted the regulatory disarray in higher education. It is almost as if it is in the grip of Murphy8217;s law: every wrong step that can be taken will be taken. For years our regulatory structure did not make it easy to set up private universities. Chhattisgarh, for a variety of dubious reasons, decides to pry open the system. Institutions mushroom as a consequence, with quality varying from the acceptable to the horrendous. There is a public outcry about their quality. Concerned citizens seek legal redress on grounds that the state has allowed universities to by-pass the authority of the University Grants Commission 8212; the institution that has a monopoly over anything that wants to call itself a university. The apex court concurs and overnight invalidates the authority of these institutions. And, as always, thousands of students are left stranded. This would be an absurd drama were it not so tragic.
There are many issues at stake. First, should UGC be the sole authority governing universities? Should states also be allowed to set their own norms? When we permit states leeway in so many areas, including primary and secondary education, why can8217;t we grant them powers in higher education? Second, if indeed the states have some power in this area, what should be the norms that govern the exercise of that power? Chhattisgarh clearly abused its power and in doing so jeopardised the future credibility of private education as a whole. Third, what are the best mechanisms to ensure that minimum norms are met?