The University Grants Commission (UGC) is proposing a draft regulation to expand eligibility criteria for appointing vice-chancellors in universities. Critics argue it overreaches its mandate under the UGC Act and raises constitutional concerns about its compatibility with the federal framework and the balance of power between the Union and States in education.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: Natioanlheralndindia
The University Grants Commission proposed draft regulation on the selection and appointment of vice-chancellors.
The objective of the proposed amendment to the UGC Regulation 2010 is to expand the eligibility criteria for appointing vice-chancellors in universities. Under the existing regulation, only academicians with a minimum of 10 years of experience as professors are eligible to become vice-chancellors.
The draft suggests professionals with equivalent experience in industries, public administration, or public policy, alongside academicians are eligible to become vice-chancellors.
The UGC was established in 1956 under the University Grants Commission Act.
The UGC Act empowers the commission to maintain and coordinate academic standards across universities. Section 26 outlines its role, such as:
However, the Act does not authorize the UGC to regulate the administrative appointment of vice-chancellors, whose duties extend beyond academics to institutional governance and leadership.
Critics argue that the draft regulation overreaches its mandate under the UGC Act. The principle of ultra vires applies here, meaning subordinate legislation, like UGC regulations, must operate within the powers granted by its law.
The UGC’s attempt to dictate the selection and qualifications of vice-chancellors can be challenged as exceeding its statutory authority.
Suresh Patilkhede v/s The Chancellor, Univ. of Maharashtra (2011) caseThe court ruled that qualifications and the appointment process for vice-chancellors do not directly impact academic standards. It stated that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of university statutes and State legislatures, not the UGC. |
Kalyani Mathivanan v/s K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors (2015)The Supreme Court held that UGC regulations, as subordinate legislation under a Central Act, have binding authority over universities, including those established under State laws. However, it did not explicitly clarify whether the UGC could regulate areas beyond its statutory scope. |
The UGC draft regulation raises concerns about its compatibility with the federal framework. It questions whether the regulation respects the balance of power between the Union and States in matters of education.
Education falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, and both the Union and State governments can legislate on it, which reflect a shared responsibility in this field.
The Constitution ensures that State legislatures possess significant autonomy regarding the governance of universities established under State law. This allows States to legislate and regulate higher education institutions within their jurisdiction.
Article 254 addresses conflicts between Central and State laws. If a State law contradicts a Central law, the Central law prevails, and the State law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency. Article 254 applies to laws made by legislatures, not subordinate legislation like UGC regulations. A UGC regulation cannot override a State statute unless the State law explicitly conflicts with a Central law.
The Supreme Court in the Kalyani Mathivanan case said that the guidelines set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) are intended to maintain standards, however, they should respect the autonomy of State legislatures.
The UGC's guidelines on vice-chancellor appointments raise concerns about federalism, legislative competence, and the role of regulatory bodies in higher education. To bypass future conflicts, the UGC should align its regulations with the constitutional distribution of powers and focus on areas explicitly mentioned within its mandate.
A collaborative approach involving consultations with State governments and other stakeholders can help to design reforms that respect the federal structure, promoting academic excellence and following constitutional principles.
Must Read Articles:
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q.Analyze the role of regulatory bodies in addressing the issue of commercialization of higher education. 150 words |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
