Opinion Criticism of draft UGC regulations ignore their potential

Let us look at a few examples that show a major change in the approach.

The draft regulations make candidates eligible for appointment as faculty in the discipline/subject that they have chosen for PhD and NET/SET, even if it is different from the discipline/subject chosen by them in undergraduate or postgraduate programmes. This provision is an attempt to steer clear of rigid disciplinary boundaries. However, it does not make candidates who have chosen the same subject across degrees ineligible.

Allowing candidates to qualify for UGC-NET or to do a PhD in a subject of their choice enables universities to tap into a larger talent pool. When faculty are allowed to specialise in subjects they are passionate about, regardless of their degree backgrounds, they are likely to excel as educators and researchers. Resisting this change on the grounds of “disciplinary purity” amounts to turning a blind eye towards the interventions that multidisciplinary teaching and research can make to enhance the quality and relevance of education globally.

Let us now look into the provision of “notable contributions” designed to do away with the Academic Performance Indicator (API) system of the 2018 regulations that heavily rely on quantitative metrics. The 2025 draft proposes discontinuing API-based shortlisting thus allowing the selection committees to assess candidates based on their contributions to academics, research, institutional development, society and the larger national interest. Critics have also overlooked that the expected notable contributions from the academic staff/librarian cadre and the physical education/sports cadre have been identified separately, thus giving them sufficient scope to fulfil the eligibility criteria. Considering various aspects such as innovation, digital literacy, user engagement, inclusivity, community engagement and institution building ensures a comprehensive evaluation of a candidate’s contributions.

The provision of forming a search-cum-selection committee by the Chancellor for the appointment of VCs, and opening up the post to industry experts and public sector veterans is being vilified. It is difficult to understand how the mere formation of a three-member committee by the Chancellor is an assault on federalism . And how is the current provision of VC appointments by the Chancellor more democratic? Laying down the composition and required qualifications of the members of the search-cum-selection committee makes the procedure more transparent and democratic. Allowing people from diverse backgrounds to become VCs broadens the leadership talent pool. The draft regulations have taken all possible precautions to ensure the academic integrity of the leadership.

The draft regulations aim to create a more inclusive, dynamic, and quality-driven higher education system in India. Flexibility, inclusivity, and democracy are not meant to be mere rhetoric for public platforms but are guiding principles for individuals, society, and the nation. These principles need to be delicately woven into rules and regulations, and the latter should be understood in this context.

The writer is professor at the Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU