India's No.1 PU & Degree With Integrated IAS & IPS(UPSC/PSC) Training College.
Broken UGC Needs Reform, Not New Bill
BROKEN UGC NEEDS REFORM. BUT THE NEW HIGHER EDUCATION BILL IS NOT THE ANSWER
Why in the News?
- A former member of the University Grants Commission has supported its proposed abolition under the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhiniyam (VBSA) Bill.
- The UGC has been described as broken, dysfunctional, and counterproductive in regulating higher education.
- The move aligns with reforms proposed in the National Education Policy 2020, which advocates a new regulatory framework.
- The proposed system emphasizes independent and empowered bodies to ensure:
○ Better checks and balances
○ Reduced conflicts of interest
○ Elimination of concentration of power in a single authority
Concerns with the Proposed VBSA Bill
- The proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhiniyam (VBSA) Bill is seen as contradicting reform objectives by promoting:
○ Concentration of power
○ Increased centralisation and bureaucratisation
○ Greater commercialisation of higher education
- Based on experience within the University Grants Commission (2010–2013):
○ The institution was marked by corruption and inefficiency, comparable to agencies like the Public Works Department and Delhi Development Authority
○ Conflicts of interest were widespread
○ Autonomy existed only on paper, with heavy bureaucratic control
○ Lack of capacity and domain expertise to regulate diverse higher education institutions
- Reform attempts under Kapil Sibal:
○ Inclusion of individuals with academic credibility and integrity
○ However, resulting changes were largely cosmetic and limited in impact
- Structural issues within the system:
○ Even well-intentioned members had minimal influence
○ The system was described as deeply flawed at the top level, requiring drastic overhaul
Findings of the Yashpal Committee (2009)
- The committee led by Yashpal highlighted similar concerns:
○ Recommended abolition of UGC and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
○ Proposed creation of a National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER)
- Key reform principles suggested:
○ Integrated regulatory framework to remove overlap
○ Promotion of academic autonomy
○ End of “inspection raj” and excessive bureaucratic control
○ Shift from prior approvals to self-regulation
○ Emphasis on public purpose of universities
○ Ensuring adequate state funding and curbing commercialisation
Why the VBSA Bill is Criticised
- Moves opposite to Yashpal Committee recommendations
- Risks a “triple whammy” for higher education:
○ Erosion of academic autonomy (faculty and institutions)
○ Weakening of state governments’ role
○ Neglect of public purpose of higher education
- Lacks:
○ Clear provisions for state funding
○ Institutional mechanisms for social justice
○ The bill may intensify existing problems rather than resolve them, potentially making the system worse than the current UGC framework
- The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhiniyam (VBSA) Bill is viewed as a repackaged version of the Higher Education Commission of India Bill 2018, which was earlier withdrawn due to:
○ Concerns over centralisation of power
○ Loss of institutional autonomy
○ Uncertainty regarding funding mechanisms
- Despite structural changes, the bill fails to address the core issue of power concentration:
○ Introduces three separate councils (regulation, accreditation, academic standards)
○ However, these function under a centralised superstructure, maintaining the same control logic
Lack of Institutional Autonomy
- The new framework creates an illusion of decentralisation:
○ Institutions are separate but not independent
- The central government retains full control over:
○ Appointment of chairpersons and members
○ Removal, suspension, or supersession of the commission
- Bureaucratic dominance persists, with administrative control overriding academic independence
Excessive Centralised Powers
- Contrary to the National Education Policy 2020 vision of “light but tight” regulation, the bill grants:
○ Expanded coercive powers to the regulatory body, similar to how environmental clearances are granted with extensive bureaucratic oversight
- Authorities can:
○ Penalise institutions and officials
○ Deregister degrees
○ Shut down colleges or universities
- The bill also allows for ex post facto approvals in certain cases, raising concerns about retrospective environmental clearances-style regulatory practices being adopted in education, where institutions might operate first and seek approval later
- Appeals against such decisions lie with the central government itself, raising concerns about fairness and accountability, unlike judicial oversight seen in cases like the Vanashakti judgment that emphasized independent review mechanisms
Undermining Federal Structure
- The bill shows disregard for federalism and principles of environmental democracy that emphasize stakeholder participation:
○ State governments have minimal or token representation
○ No role in the three key councils
- Compared to the 2018 bill:
○ Even the limited consultative mechanism has been removed
- Implication:
○ States may establish institutions, but the centre controls recruitment, curriculum, functioning, and existence, much like how the Forest Conservation Act and Coastal Regulation Zone regulations centralize environmental governance
- This approach contradicts the EIA notification framework’s emphasis on multi-level governance and the principles of environmental jurisprudence that advocate for decentralized decision-making
Neglect of Funding and Social Justice
- The bill removes existing provisions for funding regulation without:
○ Clarifying sources of funding
○ Establishing financial accountability mechanisms similar to the polluter pays principle that ensures those who benefit bear the costs
- No provisions for:
○ Equity, access, and non-discrimination in higher education
- Indicates a shift away from the public purpose of education, especially at a time when:
○ First-generation learners increasingly rely on state-supported higher education to access a pollution free environment for learning and development
Way Forward
- Ensure Genuine Institutional Autonomy
○ Create truly independent regulatory bodies, not centrally controlled structures
○ Establish transparent and merit-based appointment processes involving multiple stakeholders (Centre, States, academia)
- Decentralise Governance & Strengthen Federalism
○ Provide meaningful representation to State governments in all regulatory councils
○ Institutionalise a permanent consultative mechanism between Centre and States for higher education policy
- Adopt “Light but Tight” Regulation
○ Align with the spirit of the National Education Policy 2020
○ Reduce excessive bureaucratic control and inspections
○ Focus on outcome-based regulation and academic self-governance
- Clear and Equitable Funding Framework
○ Define sustainable public funding mechanisms for higher education
○ Ensure predictable grants to universities, especially state institutions
○ Prevent over-commercialisation by regulating profiteering
- Promote Equity, Access, and Inclusion
○ Introduce explicit provisions for social justice, including:
■ Support for marginalised and first-generation learners
■ Strengthening scholarships, reservations, and outreach programmes
- Strengthen Accountability with Checks & Balances
○ Separate regulation, accreditation, and funding functions with real independence
○ Create an independent appellate authority, instead of central government control
- Capacity Building & Expertise
○ Build domain expertise within regulatory bodies
○ Encourage academic leadership over bureaucratic dominance
- Revive Key Reform Recommendations
○ Revisit ideas from the Yashpal Committee:
■ Promote academic autonomy
■ Reduce “inspection raj”
■ Strengthen the public purpose of universities
Mains question (250 words)
Critically examine the proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhiniyam Bill in light of concerns over centralisation and public funding in India’s higher education governance framework.
