The academia, political parties and the common man have all been taken by surprise by the UGC Regulations 2025, released on January 6 on the appointment of Vice Chancellors to universities. There is a growing voice and appeals are being made almost on a daily basis for reconsidering the decision.
The opposition to the guidelines, especially pertaining to the appointment of Vice Chancellors is the fear that the university system would be reduced to corporatisation. Also, the appointees would serve their political masters.
Questions are being raised whether the University Grants Commission (UGC) has the mandate or the legal authority to make such sweeping changes. (See the article by Dr Madabhushi Sridhar in the following pages from constitutional perspective).
For all practical purposes, the vice-chancellor (V-C) is supposed to be the first academic among equals, someone who is expected to uphold the highest traditions and standards of knowledge creation and dissemination within an academic community he/she presides over.
The role of the Vice Chancellor is to uphold the sanctity of the university, intellectual capital and take care of the needs address the problems of the stakeholders which include the teaching/non-teaching staff and the student community. Above all, he/she is expected to be an academic of exceptional merit and personal rectitude, who also has qualities of true leadership, courage and a definite vision.
Universities are meant to be bastions of knowledge, innovation and research. When Vice Chancellors owe their appointment to political masters, there is bound to be pulls and pressures. As a result, academics is bound to suffer. The initiative to introduce creative ideas, provide an eco-system for innovation and path breaking research which universities are meant for takes a back seat.
The new draft guidelines of the UGC propose that the V-C’s position may be offered, inter alia, to a reputed public servant or an industry leader or a senior researcher in an institute, with the same stipulation of 10 years’ experience.
Some states have raised concerns, fearing that the increased centralization of power, especially in VC appointments, could undermine state autonomy.
With the expenditure on education being cut year after year, the central and state governments are slowly pulling out of their financial commitments, making it difficult for an average public university to sustain or survive.
Many universities today have contract teaching staff, appointments have been dwindling with each passing year and also, the department heads are being told to generate income by ways of conducting workshops and conferences. In short- to self-finance. The move by the UGC to pick Vice Chancellors comes against this background. The intention is when Vice Chancellors are picked from the industry; they would be able to infuse funds from the corporate world.
The supporters of the corporatisation of universities believe that industry-university interface is vital in the new world order. The purists are sceptical and call it ‘commercialisation of universities’ which will ultimately dilute academic standards.
Autonomy question
Such a move, if implemented, would be a blow to the autonomy of the university system which, over the past few decades, has already been compromised, in more ways than one. A university is of the academics, for the academic training (of teachers, researchers and scholars), and therefore, must be led or administered by an academic, too. Our inability to look for the best leaders within the academia should not be an excuse for throwing open the doors of the university system to corporate czars.
Universities are meant to be bastions of knowledge, innovation and research. When Vice Chancellors owe their appointment to political masters, there is bound to be pulls and pressures
While free thinking is the essence of a university, a multinational operates on the principal of structural compliance. The very purpose of a university is to create, through innovation and research, a group of free thinkers and philosophers, whereas a multinational needs a band of people who submit to the larger, commercial goals of the company or the logic of the market, says Rana Nayar, retired Professor from the Department of English, Panjab University writing in the Hindustan Times.
Six states challenge the Centre’s move
In a meeting held in Bengaluru in February, several education ministers of different states came together for a stand on the UGC guidelines.
Telangana’s IT & Industries Minister, Duddilla Sridhar Babu, has taken a firm stand against the draft UGC Regulations 2025, which seek to clip the wings of state governments in appointing university vice-chancellors. Representing the Telangana government Sridhar Babu participated in a crucial meeting in Bengaluru, where education ministers and representatives from six (non-BJP-ruled) states—Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh—closed ranks to challenge the Centre’s move.
At the meeting, Sridhar Babu pulled no punches, slamming the central government’s attempt to tighten its grip on higher education. “For years, states have had the final say in appointing vice-chancellors, and now the Centre wants to call the shots. Telangana alone spends nearly Rs 4,000 crore annually on higher education, setting up new universities, fostering research and innovation, and ensuring quality education. What gives the Centre the right to meddle in our affairs?” he asked.
The minister tore into the proposal that would allow industry leaders, bureaucrats, and external individuals to be appointed as vice-chancellors, calling it a recipe for disaster. He also took issue with the requirement that universities must have at least 3,000 students to qualify for grading and central incentives, arguing that such a rule would tilt the scales in favour of private universities and deemed universities, leaving state institutions in the lurch.
Sridhar Babu didn’t stop there. He lambasted the proposal to introduce entrance exams for undergraduate programs like BA, B.Com, and B.Sc., branding it a barrier that would slam the door on students from economically weaker backgrounds.
Another bone of contention was the plan to extend vice-chancellors’ tenures from three to five years, which Sridhar Babu flatly rejected. He also pointed out the pitfalls of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, stating that measures like twice-yearly admissions for degree programs and allowing students to pursue two courses simultaneously would stretch faculty and infrastructure to the breaking point.
The minister was particularly scathing about the UGC’s strong-arm tactics—threatening to withhold funds from states that don’t toe the line on grading criteria or NEP implementation. He also criticized the push for online and correspondence course approvals, calling it a direct assault on the federal spirit of governance.
Reminding the gathering that Chief Minister Revanth Reddy had already fired off a letter to Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, officially opposing the Draft UGC Regulations 2025, Sridhar Babu reiterated that any major policy shift in higher education must be shaped through consensus, not diktats from Delhi.
As the meeting drew to a close, the education ministers and representatives from the six states joined forces to pass a resolution urging Dharmendra Pradhan to put the brakes on the draft regulations. Telangana was also represented at the meeting by Higher Education Commissioner A. Sridevasena and Higher Education Council Chairman Balakrishna Reddy.
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh—closed ranks to challenge the Centre’s move
Centre using UGC like a puppet, says Prof. Haragopal
Noted social activist Professor Hara Gopal, while noting that the University Grants Commission (UGC) is a statutory independent body, he alleged that the Centre was using it like a puppet to implement its own agenda and taking decisions that undermine the standards of the universities and termed the agenda of the Centre a grave threat to democracy. He also demanded that the Centre immediately withdraw the UGC’s new guidelines that undermine the autonomy of the universities.
Noting that the University Grants Commission (UGC) had released the draft on January 6 in the name of maintaining minimum qualifications for appointment and promotion of professors of various universities and colleges in the country and the protection of standards in higher education, he said the draft proposals were contrary to the spirit of the Indian Constitution, the appointment of VCs in the hands of the Governor is completely unconstitutional.
The State government had been setting up a three-member search committee for the appointment of the vice-chancellors (VCs) and added that the committee consists of three members — a representative of the UGC, a proposed member of the State government and a representative of the University Council. “The names of the three selected candidates will be sent by the State government to the Governor and one of the three candidates will be selected by the Governor as the VC. But now, the revised rules of the UGC 2025 are giving more power to Governors in the selection of the vice-chancellors, which is highly dangerous,” he warned
Key Features of the UGC Guidelines 2025
- Revamped Vice-Chancellor Appointment Process: The guidelines introduce a Search-cum-Selection Committee for VC appointments, comprising nominees from the Chancellor/Visitor, UGC Chairman, and the university’s apex body (such as the Ex-Senate). This new structure ensures a more transparent and diverse selection process. Additionally, the eligibility criteria for VCs have been expanded. Now, professionals with over 10 years of experience in fields like industry, public administration, or public sector undertakings, along with notable academic contributions, can be considered for VC appointments.
- Aligning with NEP 2020: In line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the new guidelines emphasize leadership, governance, and collaboration skills for VCs. This move seeks to promote leadership in universities that fosters a collaborative, inclusive, and forward-thinking academic environment, which is central to the goals outlined in NEP 2020.
Centre-State conflicts over VC appointments
The introduction of these new UGC regulations has sparked several conflicts between the central government and state governments over the issue of VC appointments. Many states feel that these changes erode their autonomy in higher education governance. Some of the key state-level conflicts include:
- Kerala: In 2023, Kerala passed a bill to replace the Governor with eminent educationists as Chancellor, which is still awaiting Presidential assent.
- Karnataka: In December 2024, Karnataka introduced a bill to replace the Governor with the Chief Minister as Chancellor for state universities, with similar legislation being considered for other universities.
- Maharashtra: Maharashtra sought to limit the Governor’s powers in VC appointments in 2021, but the bill was withdrawn in 2022 following a change in government.
- Tamil Nadu: In 2022, Tamil Nadu passed two bills allowing the state government to appoint VCs, but these bills remain unapproved by the Governor.
These developments underscore the tension between central control and state autonomy in managing higher education institutions.
Draft Guidelines for Vice-Chancellor Appointment:
Organisation involved: University Grants Commission (UGC).
Key features of VC appointment guidelines:
Authority for Selection: Chancellors or Visitors are empowered to form a three-member search-cum-selection committee for appointing VCs.
Selection Process
Applications are invited via all-India newspaper advertisements or through nomination/talent search processes.
A committee consisting of nominees from the Visitor/Chancellor (Chairperson), UGC Chairperson, and the university’s apex body (e.g., Senate, Syndicate) selects the VC.
Eligibility
Distinguished professionals from academia, industry, public administration, or policymaking with proven academic contributions are eligible.
Inclusivity: Encourages representation of economically weaker sections (EWS), SC, ST, OBC, and persons with disabilities.
Transparency: Mandates public notification and objective assessment methods.
Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Non-compliance with these guidelines may result in institutions being barred from UGC schemes or offering degree programs
Are the new UGC regulations guidelines or are they fault lines is what the academic is questioning. Universities are meant to be free-thinking spaces that work towards new and fresh ideas to take forward mankind, beyond commercial goals. While there is a need to be financially secure and develop as a nation, handing over universities into the hands of political masters could have dangerous consequences.
