Opinion A little knowledge is dangerous

As for the proposal for a National Commission for Higher Education and Research,no draft of the bill has ever been circulated by the HRD ministry. The ministry set up a task force consisting of academics of unquestionable credentials — namely,Mrinal Miri,Goverdhan Mehta,N.R. Madhava Menon,M.K. Bhan,Narendra Jadhav,Anandakrishnan and Syeda Hameed — for preparing successive drafts of the bill. The task force circulated a draft for public discourse. This initial draft,after wide consultations across the country and among academics,state governments and other stakeholders for more than a year,has undergone substantial changes.

The final draft has not yet been submitted to the ministry. The ministry will only take a view on the structure of the National Commission for Higher Education and Research when the final draft is submitted to it. The HRD minister has often made public pronouncements,widely carried by the media,stating that the ministry is yet to take a decision on the final architecture of the proposed body. This can only be done after the final draft is submitted by the task force and inter-ministerial consultations are held. These facts have,of course,escaped Mehta’s analysis. By castigating the draft,he is unwittingly criticising members of the task force,whose combined academic stature and credentials in research may be somewhat modest compared to Mehta’s,but are,however,unimpeachable and widely respected.

Mehta goes on to say,“the ministry tried to supposedly scrutinise the deemed university system by withdrawing recognition to several institutions.” This is also factually incorrect. No recognition to any institution deemed to be university has been withdrawn,till date. Indeed,owing to a stay ordered by the Supreme Court,no show-cause notice has even been issued to the institutions categorised as unworthy of continuing as “deemed universities” by the review committee consisting of P.N. Tandon and other academics of note. Obviously,Mehta is not aware of the process or the parameters that the review committee of experts has taken into consideration before submitting its findings to the ministry.

Mehta also states,“the Supreme Court had to intervene to superintend the process.” This,again,is erroneous. The ministry voluntarily submitted the findings of the review committee,since the Supreme Court has,in an ongoing related matter (Viplav Sharma v Union of India & Others) raised issues of care and rigour required in declaration of institutions as deemed to be universities and the scrutiny thereof. As a matter of fact,the setting up of the review committee and the progress in the committee’s work were seen to be in the full knowledge of the Supreme Court from time to time. Therefore,to insinuate otherwise,is in fact unwarranted in a matter that is sub-judice before that court. I do not know if Mehta knows what the establishment process is in the setting up and scrutiny of deemed universities. He may have an opinion which may suffer from lack of information or understanding.

Mehta says,“the standing committee was right to object to it” (the bill). The committee did not object to the bill. In fact,its recommendations supported the legislation,but gave additional suggestions. Mehta then says,“a plausible case could be made for a limited dispute resolution mechanism”. Indeed,the bill provides for such a mechanism in clauses 15,17,31 and 33,if he cares to look at the bill once again.

Mehta says,“student grievances of particular kinds require better in-house mechanisms and it is not advisable to legalise them in the same way you might want to legalise other forms of regulatory issues.” It would have been obvious that this is precisely what has been done,if only Mehta were to spare some time to look carefully at the bill — together with the inter-connected legislative proposal relating to the prohibition on unfair practices in higher education that has already been introduced in the Lok Sabha.

It is wrong to assert,as Mehta has done,that “the composition of these tribunals is nothing but a vast contrivance to secure more sinecures for about-to-retire civil servants.” The tribunals at the level of each state,and each bench of the National Educational Tribunal,would consist of a judicial member and an academic member,along with an administrative member who has had long experience of administration in “educational matters”. All three representations are equally essential in determining disputes coming in the purview of the bill. It is not clear how academics are under-represented in this categorisation,and Mehta has,once again,got it all wrong.

Mehta is also in deficit of facts when he says that norms of judicial representation as set out by the Supreme Court have been violated in the tribunals bill. The reply by the HRD minister to the debate in the Lok Sabha where the issue was raised had amply clarified this — but then Mehta may not have had the time to follow the debate.

To be concluded

The writer is additional secretary in the Union human resource

development ministry