Opinion Modi govt’s UGC guidelines erode states’ authority in higher education, threaten federalism
Draft Regulations propose sweeping overhaul of V-C appointment process, giving chancellors — in most cases, governors— the right to constitute Search-and-Selection committees
The draft Regulations propose a sweeping overhaul of the V-C appointment process for state universities, giving chancellors — in most cases, the governors — the right to constitute Search-and-Selection committees. 
-
Share -
-
-
The Narendra Modi government never misses a chance to condemn the Emergency as a dark chapter in India’s democracy. But it continues to rely on contentious legislation framed during that era, notably the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, which shifted education from the State List to the Concurrent List. The newly proposed UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2025, have sparked a debate, especially regarding the appointment of vice-chancellors (V-Cs). The proposed changes threaten federal principles, erode states’ authority in higher education, and pave the way for excessive centralisation.
The draft Regulations propose a sweeping overhaul of the V-C appointment process for state universities, giving chancellors — in most cases, the governors — the right to constitute Search-and-Selection committees. This marks a stark departure from the existing framework, wherein state governments play a pivotal role in the selection process for state universities.
Under the draft, the committee will comprise three members: One nominee each from the chancellor/visitor, the UGC chairman, and the university’s syndicate or senate. The committee will recommend a panel of three to five candidates, from which the chancellor or visitor, with sole discretion, will make the final appointment. It removes the requirement for V-Cs to have prior teaching or research experience, raising fears of politicisation.
The origins of the governor’s role as chancellor of universities can be traced to the Wood’s Despatch of 1854, which recommended that university chancellors be persons of high station with an interest in the cause of education. Post-Independence, governors retained this, thanks to a political milieu where a single party held sway at national and state levels. However, the rise of multi-party politics created tensions. The inability of elected state governments to effectively supervise their universities has led to myriad administrative challenges. Complications arise when the governor/chancellor diverges from the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer, in the landmark Maru Ram vs Union of India (1980) case, characterised the offices of the President and governors as “functional euphemisms”. Unfortunately, governors have been resisting such constraints and, sometimes, acting in ways that contradict the state executive.
The Justice R S Sarkaria Commission acknowledged criticism regarding the discretionary authority exercised by some governors in their capacity as chancellors. The Commission on Centre-State Relations, however, took an unequivocal stance on the matter. In its report of March 2010, it underscored the risks of governors serving as chancellors and assuming other statutory positions.
Several states have sought to curtail the governor’s role in university governance through legislative amendments, but these attempts have had varying degrees of success. A striking illustration lies in the governor’s assent to the Gujarat Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which effectively divested the governor of chancellorship powers. It was Narendra Modi as Chief Minister who brought in the legislation and the NDA government was instrumental in granting the assent. In contrast, similar moves by Kerala and other Opposition-ruled states have been obstructed, with governors either withholding assent or referring such bills to the President.
This writer attempted to introduce a Private Member’s Bill in Rajya Sabha in July 2024 — The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (Amendment of Article 158). It sought to restrict the governors’ role strictly to constitutional functions, preventing them from assuming extra-constitutional roles such as chancellorships. It was denied introduction due to the numerical majority of the ruling coalition.
Recent Supreme Court judgments have conferred primacy to UGC regulations over state university laws, igniting fervent debates on the constitutional relationship between central regulations vis-à-vis state laws. At the heart of this discourse lies the concept of subordinate legislation/delegated legislation — a progeny of executive fiat — which refers to Rules, Regulations, or Orders promulgated by executive authorities under the powers conferred upon them by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. Granting primacy to delegated legislation like UGC regulations over state enactments impinges upon federalism. While state laws are crafted by elected representatives, delegated legislation originates from executive bodies.
The draft Regulations also seek to institutionalise contractual employment in higher education by removing the 10 per cent cap, accelerating the contractualisation of teaching positions. They also permit Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to recruit up to 10 per cent professionals from industry and non-academic fields as professors of practice, fostering corporate influence in academia while creating a fragmented faculty structure. The trend mirrors ad-hoc recruitment policies, such as Agniveers in the military and lateral entry in civil services, undermining social justice.
What is the Centre’s true contribution to the education sector? Even in crucial schemes such as UGC grants for teachers, it has progressively shifted the burden onto state governments — today, states bear nearly 76 per cent of the total expenditure on education.
The draft Regulations are an affront to federalism. The legislative assemblies of Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already passed resolutions calling for a withdrawal, other states will likely follow suit. At a time when India aspires to position itself as a global leader in education and research, the draft Regulations’ emphasis on central control threatens to homogenise education, eroding diversity and stifling innovation at the state level.
India’s federal structure is its cornerstone, enabling both unity and diversity. It is imperative for all stakeholders to oppose measures that threaten this delicate balance.
The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP from CPM. Inputs from Aneesh Babu
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
