The University Grants Commission (UGC) Act of 1956, often misunderstood, is not a regulatory statute, nor is it a law or order. The Act underscores that the Centre does not hold a monopoly over education; states possess equal authority to develop and manage their educational systems. Section 26 of the UGC Act empowers the Commission to prescribe qualifications for teaching staff, set academic standards, and coordinate educational initiatives. However, it does not authorize the UGC to regulate the administrative appointment of vice-chancellors, whose roles encompass not just academic oversight but also administrative leadership and institutional governance.
The recent agenda proposed by the UGC Chairman has sparked significant debate, as it seemingly exceeds the powers conferred by the UGC Act, rendering it ultra vires. Constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary has emphasized that UGC regulations, being subordinate legislation, cannot override state statutes unless there is direct conflict with a Central law under Article 254 of the Constitution.
The draft UGC Regulations 2025, released on January 6, propose a notable shift in the selection process for Vice-Chancellors, granting Chancellors or Visitors the authority to form a three-member search-cum-selection committee. Non-compliance could lead to institutions being barred from UGC schemes or offering degree programs, with a 30-day window provided for public feedback.
This shift has raised concerns about the growing influence of Governors, who traditionally serve as ceremonial heads but now appear to be wielding executive power on behalf of the Centre, challenging state sovereignty. The role of Governors in appointing Vice-Chancellors has already led to friction with state governments, often resulting in legal battles and administrative paralysis.
The draft regulations also reflect the influence of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, promoting flexibility in faculty recruitment. UGC Chairman Jagadesh Kumar highlighted that candidates could qualify for teaching positions based on their performance in the UGC-NET, regardless of their undergraduate or postgraduate disciplines. This change aims to foster a multidisciplinary ecosystem but has drawn criticism for potentially diluting academic credentials essential for quality research and teaching.
As states and stakeholders grapple with these proposed changes, the future of higher education governance in India stands at a critical crossroads, balancing central oversight with state autonomy and academic integrity.
A relaxation of 5 percent
The draft UGC also proposed that A relaxation of 5% marks shall be allowed at the undergraduate (National Credit Framework level 5.5/6) or the postgraduate (NCrF level 6.5/7) level for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes (OBC) (Non-creamy Layer)/EWS/Persons with Disabilities category. Innovative Teaching Contributions, Research or Teaching Lab Development, Consultancy / Sponsored Research funding as a Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator, or Teaching contributions in Indian languages will also be considered “notable contributions” by candidates to be appointed as assistant professors.
Supreme protected the state autonomy
A decade ago the Bombay High Court held that the qualifications and methods of appointing vice-chancellors do not directly impact academic standards and therefore fall outside the UGC’s jurisdiction and said that the administrative appointments including those of vice-chancellors, and primarily the recognition of the respective University Statutes, which is within the State law. (Suresh Patikhede vs The Chancellor, Univ of Maharashtra in 2011). However, in 2015 judgment reverted this decision saying being subordinate legislation under a Central Act, has binding authority over universities, including those established under State laws. (Kalyani Mathivanan vs K V Jeyaraj and Ors 2015). Now it is a precedent for the enforceability of UGC regulations, though it did not explicitly address whether the UGC could regulate areas beyond its statutory mandate. in Kalyani Mathivanan has been critiqued for its interpretation of parliamentary procedures regarding subordinate legislation. In this judgment, a new ‘Direct Impact’ Test was developed. The SC explained that an additional challenge lies in determining whether the UGC’s regulations on vice-chancellors meet the direct impact test on academic standards. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that regulations must demonstrate a clear and direct connection to the UGC’s mandate of maintaining academic quality. Achary emphasized “Therefore, it is safe to assume that under Section 26 of the UGC Act, the UGC has no mandate to make any regulation in respect of the selection and the appointment of vice-chancellors”. Further, he said: It can only amend a rule which has already come into effect before it is so laid; if Parliament amends the rule, it will, thereafter, be effective in the amended form. With due respect to their lordships, the observation of the Court does not correctly reflect the parliamentary procedure relating to the laying down of rules and regulations in the Houses of Parliament.
There is one most important conflict in central and state powers was dealt with the Constitution in Article 254 which emphasizes the principle and practice of ‘repugnancy’, which every student of law understands. Achary explained “Under this Article, if a State law is repugnant to the central law, the State law, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. But is a regulation made by the UGC, a central law within the meaning of Article 254? Clause (2) of this Article says that if the law made by the legislature of a state has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his ascent, it shall prevail in the State. In this clause the word ‘law’ simply means the Bill passed by the legislature and sent to the President. It does not include the rules and regulations which are framed only after ascent is received. So, what overrides a State law is a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to by the President, and certainly not the subordinate legislation”
Achary concluded “in any case, the Court made a significant ruling on the question of mandatory application of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC relating to the selection and appointment of vice-chancellors in the Kalyani Mathivanan case it says: “However, the finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature is upheld in so far as it relates to Universities and Colleges under the State Legislation.”
- Education as a concurrent subject: The Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution is one of the lists of subjects that are of common interest to both the Union and the States. It is also known as List III of the Constitution.
- Centralization of Education powers: With this power of State Governments, this draft’s regulations may centralize entire higher education. It will affect the concentration of higher education. Then one should forget about the autonomy of the University administration.
- State Power: It should be within the basic frame of state governments. When public universities are established under State Acts, UGC proposed regulations will severely curtail the rights of the States in constituting the search-cum-selection committees for the selection of Vice Chancellors.
- Withdraw. Relating to appointing non-academics as Vice-Chancellors requires to be withdrawn, and the qualifications, terms, and eligibility for appointment of vice-chancellors must be reconsidered as they impinge upon the standards of higher education.
- Revalue this action: The removal of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) system of evaluation, and the introduction of the new system allows a high level of discretion and must be re-evaluated.
- Usurping: Usurping powers of Vice Chancellors, like limiting the power of State Information Commissioners and hand over to the Centre.
- Dictatorial: If the State Universities lose the freedom to develop higher educational programs following the NEP norms, as mandatory and taking punitive measures for non-compliance are dictatorial and against the spirit of the States in a federal framework.
- Entrance as a barrier: In addition, making an entrance exam mandatory for basic undergraduate courses is a huge barrier to increasing GER and providing inclusive education.
- Reconsider: Several provisions related to the appointment of Assistant Professors require a serious re-consideration, including the provisions related to the non-requirement of a basic degree in the core subject concerned.
The nation needs the UGC as coordinator to engage in a collaborative, consultative process with the States in framing these regulations in the spirit of cooperative federalism, instead of promoting centralized education under the central government.
Understand the basis of UGC: The UGC is supposed to advise governments, regulate fees, determine teaching standards, and allocate funds, without power to regulate the selection or appointment of vice-chancellors. That job is with autonomous bodies like Universities.
New Idea: However, the UGC Chairman thought his idea was to ensure the highest standards in universities by introducing a more inclusive and transparent selection process. He further said this draft seeks to uphold the autonomy and accountability of higher education institutions. He has also been welcomed to join work collaboratively.
From draft to drift: Present regulation mandates that only academicians with at least 10 years of experience as professors are eligible. However, the ‘draft’ wants to include professionals with equivalent experience in industry, public administration, or public policy. This proposal will encroach on the States’ jurisdiction over higher education, though government supporters argue that this broadens the talent pool.
The center, under the control of UGC will have serious consequences of violations will be drastic, excessive, and undemocratic. The entire academia should examine these proposals. There are serious constitutional questions and legal litigations. What will happen to the governance of higher education in this federal country? Only time will tell.
