Constitutional Issues in UGC Draft Regulation

Context: The recent draft regulation by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on the selection and appointment of vice chancellors of universities has evoked protests by various State governments. 

The main objection against this regulation is that it constitutes a violation of the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the concerned State governments have also demanded its withdrawal.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about the UGC Act, Key features of the amendments sought in the regulation, and issues arising.

Background:

• The University Grants Commission (UGC) has sought to amend Regulation 2010 that relates to the selection and appointment of Vice Chancellors, by widening the area of selection.
  • Under the existing regulations, a vice chancellor can be selected only from among academicians who have a minimum experience of 10 years as professor. 
  • Through the draft amendment, the UGC declares that professionals with 10-plus years of experience in industry, public administration, or public policy, shall also be considered.
• The draft regulation raises serious constitutional issues which need to be examined by separating the political context of protest and a possible political reaction from the UGC or the party in power.

Objective and mandate of the UGC Act, 1956

• To coordinate and maintain standards in university education.
• To carry out functions including allocation of funds, recommending measures to improve education and to regulate university standards.
• Section 26 (Regulation making power): Section 26 empowers UGC to make regulations for its mandate, provided that they align with the Act and associated rules.

Key Features of UGC Draft Regulations 2025

• Appointments of Vice-Chancellors (VCs): 
  • Establishing a Search-cum-Selection Committee to appoint the VCs from nominated groups of members from:
    • The Chancellor/Visitor (mostly the Governor in the case of state universities),
    • The UGC Chairperson, 
    • The apex body of the university (such as Senate/Syndicate).
• Eligibility expansion: Professionals from academia, industry, public administration, public policy having at least 10 years of experience would also be eligible provided that they have a proven track record of academic or scholarly contributions.
• Terms: VCs will now hold office for five years. Presently, they hold office for the term of three years.
• Significance laid on Noteworthy Contributions: Recruitment and promotion policies for faculty have been keenly revised to make room to consider contributions in nine areas which include:
  • Innovative pedagogy
  • Research in the Indian Knowledge system.
  • Digital content creation for MOOCs
  • Teaching in Indian languages and
  • Start-ups that blend with HEI policy.

• Career Advancement Scheme (CAS): Promotions based on qualitative rather score-based criteria.
  • Research, teaching innovation, and community engagement have been emphasised.
• Promotion of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS): Research and teaching in Indian languages and traditional knowledge systems to be encouraged.
• Flexibility in faculty recruitment: The provision will also allow candidates to be eligible for teaching (through NET/SET scores) in the areas different from their disciplines in UG/PG degrees.
  • Ph.D. specialisation shall hold precedence over former degrees.
• Increased role for contractual teachers: Removal of the limit on 10% of lecturers on short-term contracts and introduction of the flexibility to hire more contract faculty.
• Inclusiveness and representation: Encouraging active participation from under-represented categories (SC/ST/OBC/EWS/Persons with Disabilities) in recruitment and for leadership positions.
• Transparency and governance: Simplified practices of recruitment and promotion that would ensure fairness and accountability.
• Professor of Practice (PoP): Up to 10% of sanctioned posts can be reserved for industry professionals other than the regular teaching roles in HEIs.
• Promotion of research and entrepreneurship: It will be expected that each faculty contributes to research labs, entrepreneurial activities, and also creates digital content (E.g., MOOCs).
• Compliances and penalties: In case of non-compliance, following actions can be taken:
  • Debarring from UGC funding and schemes.
  • De-recognition from UGC. 

Advantages of the UGC Draft Regulations 2025:

Issues and Concerns with the Draft Regulation

• Ultra vires regulation:
  • The UGC Act does not mandate regarding VC selection or appointment. Its primary role is towards setting teaching standards and qualifications for academic staff.
  • The regulations exceeding the extent and scope of the UGC Act are invalid. Here, the selection of VCs is not directly connected with maintaining the educational standards.

• Erosion of State Autonomy: By enforcing these regulations, it is feared that UGC might risk centralising power and undermining federalism which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.
  • It is also seen as undermining State governments' role in education, a subject under the Concurrent List.
  • States have argued the proposal facilitates the Centre’s control over institutions via gubernatorial proxies, which threatens institutional autonomy.
• Conflict between UGC regulations and State laws: UGC regulations cannot override State laws unless approved by Parliament. The Supreme Court in 2015 has also ruled that UGC regulations bind universities but may not apply mandatorily to State universities.
  • Furthermore, Article 254 (Doctrine of Repugnancy), State laws shall prevail unless repugnant to central laws. In this case, a regulation (subordinate legislation) does not qualify as "central law" under Article 254.
• Previous observations of Court: In past, Bombay High Court (2011) has ruled that VC selection has no "direct impact" on educational standards and UGC lacks the mandate under Section 26 for VC selection.
  • Kalyani Mathivanan Case (2015): Supreme Court ruled that UGC Regulations are recommendatory in nature for State universities and held that VC appointments in State universities fall under State legislation.
• Inconsistency in approach: UGC's stance on VC appointments has shifted repeatedly (E.g., 2010, 2013, 2018, 2025 draft), which has raised concerns about administrative overreach.
• Concerns over non-academic VCs: Critics also fear this could lead to appointments of politically loyal individuals in academic leadership and is viewed as detrimental to the higher education system’s integrity and autonomy.

Suggestions and Recommendations

• Removing the clauses contrary to federal structure: UGC should eliminate provisions that undermine federal principles.
• Encourage collaborative policymaking: The Central government needs to ensure that state governments have a meaningful role in university governance. There is a need to include state nominees in the VC selection process to balance central and state interests.
• Long-term goal of autonomy: The focus should be on reforming universities to become autonomous institutions with minimal governmental interference, retaining the government’s role only in funding.
• Balancing inclusivity and standards: Although including non-academics could bring fresh perspectives, strict criteria should ensure appointments align with academic and institutional goals.
• Judicial clarification: A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court should resolve ambiguities to affirm. The UGC regulations remain advisory for State universities unless explicitly adopted by States.