UGC Regulations vs State Laws: Autonomy at Stake

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Education , Government Policies & Interventions

Focus:

The ongoing conflict between UGC regulations and State University Acts, particularly over Vice-Chancellor appointments, highlights disputes on Centre-State relations and federalism. This issue has caused leadership crises in universities across Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab, necessitating judicial clarity on the scope of delegated legislation.

UGC Regulations vs State Laws: Autonomy at Stake

Background of the Conflict:

  • Nature of the Dispute:
    • Central question: whether UGC regulations can override State University Acts.
    • Broader issues: Centre-State relations, delegated legislation, and federalism.
  • Instances of Disagreement:
    • Tamil Nadu: Six State universities lack Vice Chancellors (VCs) due to disagreements over search committee composition.
    • Kerala and Punjab: Similar leadership vacuums, affecting university administration.
  • UGC’s Stance:
    • Based on Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, insisting on a UGC nominee in VC selection.
  • State Government’s Stance:
    • Prefers search committees as per State University Acts, opposing UGC’s involvement to protect State autonomy.

Key Features of UGC Draft Regulation on Vice Chancellors:

  • Search-cum-Selection Committee Formation:
  • Formed by the Chancellor/Visitor with three members: nominees from the Chancellor/Visitor, UGC Chairman, and the university’s apex body (Senate/Syndicate/Executive Council).
  • Inclusion of Non-Academics:
  • Professionals from public policy, administration, or industry with 10+ years of experience eligible for VC roles.
  • Standardized Selection Process:
  • Introduces uniform criteria for VC selection across central, state, and private universities.
  • Mandatory UGC Nominee:
  • Makes it compulsory to include a UGC nominee in state university Search-cum-Selection Committees.
  • Alignment with NEP 2020:
  • Proposes reforms emphasizing quality, transparency, and inclusivity, consistent with the National Education Policy 2020.
  • Positives of the Proposed Draft:
  • Standardized Framework:
  • Ensures uniformity in VC selection, improving quality.
  • Example: Supported in SC judgment (Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, 2015).
  • Increased Transparency:
  • Clear criteria reduce discretionary powers in appointments.
  • Widened Talent Pool:
  • Inclusion of non-academic professionals brings diverse perspectives.
  • Alignment with NEP 2020:
  • Encourages holistic reforms to improve higher education standards
  • .Focus on Governance Standards:
  • Promotes best practices by including experienced professionals.

Issues with the Proposed Draft:

  • Violation of State Autonomy:
  • Mandating UGC nominees undermines State legislation.
  • Example: Kerala’s opposition highlights this conflict.
  • Constitutional Overreach:
  • UGC regulations, as subordinate legislation, cannot override State University Acts.
  • Example: SC ruling in Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of UP, 1956.
  • Federal Principles at Stake:
  • States view increased central involvement as violating federal structure.
  • Example: Tamil Nadu and Kerala objected to this as an erosion of authority.
  • Ambiguity in Non-Academic Eligibility:
  • Lack of clarity on academic qualifications for non-academic professionals risks dilution of standards.
  • Potential Political Interference:
  • Greater control by Governors could lead to politically motivated appointments.
  • Example: Recent controversies in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu.

About the UGC:

  • Establishment:
  • Created in 1956 as a statutory body under the UGC Act, 1956 based on Dr. S Radhakrishnan Commission.
  • Functions:
  • Setting standards for affiliation and accreditation.
  • Developing faculty schemes, scholarships, and fellowships.
  • Monitoring quality in higher education.
  • Promoting Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) and regional languages.
  • Headquarters:
  • Located in New Delhi with regional offices in Pune, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bhopal, Guwahati, and Bangalore.

Centre’s Role in Education:

  • Constitutional Basis:
  • Concurrent List: Allows Centre and States to legislate on education.
  • Union List (Entry 66): Empowers the Centre to set standards for higher education and research.
  • Key Responsibilities:
  • Formulating National Policies (e.g., NEP 2020).
  • Establishing regulatory bodies like UGC, NCERT, and AICTE.
  • Implementing central schemes (e.g., Mid-Day Meals, PM eVidya, RUSA).
  • Financial Role:
  • Funds education infrastructure through schemes like HEFA and RUSA.
  • Supports research via CSIR, DBT, and ICSSR.

Legal and Constitutional Issues:

  • Role of UGC Regulations:
    • Subordinate legislation framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956.
    • Vice Chancellor (VC) classified as an officer of the university, not “teaching staff,” limiting UGC jurisdiction.
  • Constitutional Provisions:
    • Article 254(1):
      • Resolves conflicts between central and State laws in the Concurrent List.
      • Applies only to plenary laws, not delegated legislation.
    • Judicial Precedents:
      • Supporting UGC’s Supremacy:
        • Cases like Annamalai University vs. Secretary and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. Gujarat treat UGC regulations as mandatory.
      • Supporting State Autonomy:
        • Cases like Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and J. Dharmaraj vs. Church of South India emphasize the advisory nature of UGC regulations.
      • Nature of Subordinate Legislation:
        • Supreme Court rulings: Subordinate legislation cannot override plenary legislation, unless explicitly stated.

Analysis of UGC’s Role and Actions

  • Overreach by the UGC:
    • Regulatory Ambiguity:
      • Policy shifts: Inclusion of UGC nominees in 2010, removal in 2013, reinstatement in 2018, and expanded control in the 2025 draft regulations.
    • Limited Powers:
      • Section 12(d) of the UGC Act gives UGC advisory powers, enforceable only through financial penalties.
      • Supreme Court ruling in University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh (1994): UGC regulations are recommendatory.
    • Conflict with State Autonomy:
      • States argue UGC’s involvement erodes their legislative authority over universities.

Judicial Ambiguities and Need for Clarity

  • Conflicting Judgments:
    • Contradictory Supreme Court rulings:
      • Some judgments treat UGC regulations as part of the UGC Act, invoking Article 254(1).
      • Others emphasize their voluntary adoption by States.
    • Interpretation of Laying Procedures:
      • Subordinate legislation laid under Section 28 of the UGC Act does not automatically become part of the parent Act.
      • Recognized procedures:
        • Without Further Procedure: Informational.
        • Negative Resolution: Effective immediately, subject to annulment.
        • Affirmative Resolution: Effective only after legislative approval.

Way Forward:

  • Judicial Intervention:
    • A Constitutional Bench must address:
      • Applicability of Article 254(1) to subordinate legislation.
      • Whether UGC regulations become part of the UGC Act upon being laid in Parliament.
      • Clarify the advisory nature of UGC regulations for State universities.
    • Policy Recommendations:
      • UGC should focus on its advisory role and avoid overreach.
      • Collaboration between States and the UGC to balance national standards with State autonomy.
    • Balancing Legislative Powers:
      • Reinforce federal principles by limiting UGC regulations to cases of voluntary State adoption.
      • Enhance legislative oversight to curb executive overreach.
    • Restoring Normalcy:
      • Resolving the impasse is crucial for:
        • Smooth functioning of State universities.
        • Ensuring timely appointments, academic decisions, and standards maintenance.

Conclusion:

The UGC-State dispute underscores the delicate balance between federalism and academic governance. A definitive Supreme Court ruling is essential to resolve ambiguities, restore normalcy in State universities, and ensure harmony between national education standards and State autonomy in legislative powers.

Source: IE

Mains Practice Question:

Analyze the conflict between UGC regulations and State University Acts in the context of federalism and Centre-State relations. Suggest measures to balance national education standards with State autonomy. (250 words)