Context:
Six Higher Education Ministers from Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh passed a joint resolution against the draft UGC regulations and grading system under the New Education Policy 2020.
Key Provisions of Draft Regulation and UGC Mandate
- A new draft version of the regulation for UGC 2010 is proposing expansion of the category of appointment of vice chancellor.
- Currently, eligible candidates must have at least a 10 years of teaching experience as professors.
- The draft proposes eligible candidates as individuals with similar amount of service experience in the industry, the public administrations, or a public policymaker.
- Supporters argue this expands the pool of talent while critics argue it intrudes upon States’ jurisdiction on higher education and deviates from the core mission of the UGC.
Mission of the UGC
- University Grants Commission (UGC): Constituted in 1956, it’s tasked with:
- Coordinating and sustaining standards of universities throughout India.
- Providing advice to governments, setting fees, setting standards for teaching, and grants distribution.
- Yet, the UGC Act does not confer any specific mandate for the Commission to regulate the appointment of vice chancellors, an act that has been termed as overreach.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
The Jurisdiction of the UGC
- The UGC Act, 1956 defined the jurisdiction of the Commission, which is said to cover academic standards, qualification for teachers, and education development programs.
- The Act does not grant the UGC power over administrative appointments, such as vice chancellors, whose role extends beyond academic oversight to institutional governance.
- Critics argue that the draft regulation is an ultra vires action, i.e., it exceeds the authority of the UGC and could be deemed invalid.
Judicial Interpretations and Precedents
- Suresh Patilkhede vs The Chancellor, Univ. of Maharashtra (2011)
- The Bombay High Court held the appointment of vice chancellors comes within States’ jurisdiction only and should be governed in accordance with a State statutes.
- Kalyani Mathivanan v K.V. Jeyaraj (2015)
- While the SC held that provisions of UGC regulations come into force vis à vis State university, it hasn’t dealt about the power by UGC itself in the election of vice chancellors directly.
Implications on Federalism and the Principle of Repugnancy
- Education is a Concurrent List subject, thereby both the Centre and State governments are competent to make laws.
- The State legislatures have autonomy over the universities they establish, including their choice of the vice chancellor.
- The Constitution, through Article 254 indicates that laws made by The Centre supersede the ones made by The States. However, this mainly pertains to Acts and not to subordinate regulations such as the one made by the UGC.
- This is why the rules of the UGC cannot abrogate State enactments unless clearly repugnant to a Central enactment.
Recommendations and the Way Forward
- The observations of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Mathivanan indicate that the UGC’s directive related to vice chancellors should be more advisory than directive for State universities.
- A collaborative response from the State governments and stakeholders will ensure that the reformation is kept centered but ensures federal balance and academic excellence.
