Why in News?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has proposed new regulations for appointing Vice Chancellors (VCs) in universities, sparking disputes between states and the Centre.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• New Regulations for Appointing VCs in Universities
• How VCs are Appointed?
• Key Provisions of the Draft Regulations 2025
• State vs Centre Disputes over VC Appointments
• Federalism Concerns over VCs Appointments
• Conclusion

New Regulations for Appointing VCs in Universities:

• Name: The draft 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.
• Objective: It aims to standardize appointment processes but has drawn criticism for allegedly undermining state rights and federalism.

How VCs are Appointed?

• Central universities:
  • Central universities are established under parliamentary Acts and administered by the Centre, with the President of India acting as Visitor.
  • VC appointment committees include two nominees from the university’s Executive Council and one from the Visitor.
• State universities:
  • State-specific laws often determine the composition of search committees.
  • Typically, the Chancellor (usually the Governor) selects the VC based on committee recommendations.
  • For instance, Kerala’s law includes nominees from the university Senate, UGC Chairman, and Chancellor.
• Private universities: Private institutions follow similar procedures, with UGC playing a limited role through its nominee in the search committee.

Key Provisions of the Draft Regulations 2025:

• Committee composition changes:
  • The new rules specify that the search-cum-selection committee will have three members, including one each nominated by the Chancellor/Visitor, the UGC Chairman, and the university’s apex body (e.g., Senate or Syndicate).
  • This grants a majority to Centre-aligned nominees in the committee.
• Eligibility expansion: Besides professors, individuals from senior roles in industries, public policy, administration, or public sector undertakings may now qualify as VCs.
• Chancellor’s role: The Chancellor or Visitor will directly constitute the search committee, a departure from the 2018 guidelines.

State vs Centre Disputes over VC Appointments:

• Kerala:
  • Conflict started in 2021 when Governor Arif Mohammad Khan contested VC reappointments.
  • The state passed a Bill to replace the Governor as Chancellor, which awaits Presidential assent.
• West Bengal:
  • The Supreme Court is involved in resolving disputes over interim VC appointments made unilaterally by the Governor.
  • The state Assembly’s move to replace the Governor with the Chief Minister as Chancellor is stalled due to lack of gubernatorial assent.
• Karnataka: Proposed legislative reforms aim to remove the Governor as Chancellor. Bills are awaiting approval.
• Maharashtra: Attempts to limit the Governor’s role in VC appointments were reversed under the new government in 2022.
• Tamil Nadu: The DMK-led government’s efforts to appoint VCs without Governor approval remain blocked.

Federalism Concerns over VCs Appointments:

• State governments have raised alarms over the draft regulations, citing:
  • Erosion of State autonomy: States argue that these rules centralize power in the hands of Governors, undermining federal principles.
  • Democratic concerns: Critics see it as a move to weaken democratically elected state governments.
• State leaders’ reactions:
  • Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan: Described the draft as “anti-federal” and an overreach into state rights.
  • Tamil Nadu CM M K Stalin: Called it a “direct assault on federalism.”
• UGC’s stance: UGC Chairman M Jagadesh Kumar defended the regulations as necessary for aligning with the National Education Policy 2020 and ensuring transparent, high-quality leadership in higher education.

Conclusion:

The proposed UGC regulations have intensified ongoing Centre-state tensions, particularly over Governors’ roles in university administration. While the Centre justifies these reforms as quality-driven, state governments view them as a threat to federalism and their autonomy in education governance.

The resolution of these disputes will significantly shape higher education and federal-state dynamics in India.