Context

• The Draft University Grants Commission (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, has sparked widespread debate.
• The primary concerns revolve around two key aspects: the method of appointing Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) and the broadening of the qualifications required for this esteemed academic position.
• These concerns need to be analysed in light of India’s evolving federal structure and the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.

The Most Debated Aspect of the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025: Reducing the Role of the State Executive in V-C Appointments

• The appointment of V-Cs in Indian universities has long been a contentious issue, primarily due to the involvement of state governments in the selection process.
• Historically, state legislatures and executives have played a significant role in these appointments, often using them as an extension of political influence over higher education.
• However, a series of Supreme Court judgments have sought to reduce the role of the state executive, ensuring that the selection process remains independent, merit-based, and free from undue political interference.
• The Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, reflect these judicial rulings by proposing a search-cum-selection committee structure that significantly limits state intervention.

New Selection Structure Under the 2025 Regulations

• The Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, propose that the search-cum-selection committee should be composed of highly qualified individuals with substantial academic leadership experience.
• The recommended composition includes:
  • A nominee of the Chancellor of the university (often the Governor in state universities).
  • A nominee of the executive body of the university (e.g., the Senate or Board of Governors).
  • A nominee of the UGC.
• Notably absent from this list are representatives from the state executive, a clear departure from previous practices where state governments could appoint their nominees to these committees.
• The intention behind this restructuring is to ensure academic independence, preventing politically motivated appointments that could compromise the quality and integrity of higher education institutions.

Judicial Precedents

• Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs The State of Gujarat (2019): The Court held that any influence exerted by the state executive in the appointment of V-Cs is unconstitutional, as it compromises the autonomy of higher education institutions.
• Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee case (2022): This case further established that the state government should not have discretionary power in V-C selection, reinforcing the idea that academic leadership should be insulated from political interference.
• Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (2022): The Court invalidated an appointment where the selection process was found to be influenced by the state government, setting a precedent that such appointments should be purely merit-based.
• Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth vs The Chancellor, Kannur University (2023): The judgment in this case reaffirmed that the presence of state executive members in the search-cum-selection committee renders the appointment process ab initio void (invalid from the beginning), irrespective of the appointee’s qualifications.

State Government’s Perspective and Concerns

• Financial and Administrative Responsibility
  • Most state universities rely heavily on funding from state governments for their operation, infrastructure development, and faculty salaries.
  • Given their financial stake, state governments argue that they should have a role in selecting leadership that aligns with regional education priorities.
• Regional and Policy Priorities
  • Unlike central universities, which cater to a national audience, state universities are deeply integrated into their local communities.
  • They play a critical role in state-driven research, workforce development, and social advancement.
  • State governments worry that if they lose control over V-C appointments, universities may become disconnected from regional developmental goals.
• Balance Between Autonomy and Accountability
  • State governments believe that while universities should have autonomy in academic matters, they must also remain accountable to public policy goals.
  • This accountability, they argue, is best maintained through some level of state involvement in leadership selection.

Possible Solutions to Address the Concerns of Both Judiciary and State Governments

• Consensus-Based Nomination from University Executives
  • One way to ensure state participation without violating judicial precedents is to allow the university’s executive body (e.g., Senate, Board of Governors) to nominate a search committee member. This nominee could be:
    • A former eminent academic who has previously served as a V-C or held a similar leadership role.
    • Someone informally approved by the state executive but not a direct government official or political appointee.
  • This approach would maintain academic neutrality while still allowing state interests to be considered in the selection process.
• Limited State Representation in Selection Committees
  • An alternative approach would be for the UGC to allow one nominee from the state government on the search-cum-selection committee, in addition to the representative from the university executive.
  • However, to ensure fairness, this nominee should:
    • Be a former V-C or an equivalent academic leader rather than a government bureaucrat or political figure.
    • Meet the same standards of independence required of members of commissions such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

The Way Forward: Avoiding a Confrontational Approach

• A complete exclusion of state governments from the V-C selection process could lead to political and legal conflicts.
• States might resist implementing the new regulations, leading to prolonged disputes that could hinder university governance.
• Instead of creating a collision course between the judiciary and state governments, it is essential to find a cooperative approach that respects both judicial mandates and state interests.

Conclusion

• The Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, mark a significant shift in the governance of higher education, reinforcing the principle of independent and merit-based Vice-Chancellor appointments.
• While the Supreme Court has established clear legal precedents against state executive involvement, state governments have legitimate concerns regarding their role in shaping higher education institutions that they fund and manage.
• The challenge lies in striking a balance, ensuring that universities remain free from political interference while also recognizing the state’s stake in higher education.