UGC Draft Regulations on Vice-Chancellors Appointment

The University Grants Commission's (UGC) recent draft regulations concerning the appointment of vice-chancellors (V-Cs) have intensified Centre-state tensions.

Overview of Draft Regulations

• The draft, dated January 7, seeks to address ambiguities in the 2018 regulations regarding V-C appointments.
• These regulations seem to enhance the Centre's influence over state-funded universities.

Role of the Governor

The governor, as the Centre's representative, plays a central role in the controversy, particularly concerning the qualifications for the V-C role.

• Traditionally, the governor acts as the chancellor of state universities.
• The new regulations grant the governor significant power in V-C appointments.

Appointment Process Details

• The 2018 regulations allowed a search committee of "eminent persons" to shortlist candidates.
• The chancellor (governor) would then choose from these recommended candidates.
• State-specific laws guided the composition of these committees in state universities.
• The draft regulations override state laws, dictating the search committee's composition.

Composition of the Search Committee

• Constituted by the governor.
• Includes a member nominated by the chancellor (governor), the UGC chairman, and a member from the university's apex body.
• This structure excludes state governments from the V-C appointment process in state-funded universities.

Concerns and Opposition

States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and West Bengal are notably opposed, with some issues pending in the Supreme Court.

Qualifications for V-Cs

• The draft permits appointments beyond traditional academia, including individuals from industry and public sectors.
• Critics question the benefit of such a diverse talent pool for the V-C role.

Objective and Criticism

The regulations aim to maintain higher education standards, but state governments doubt their effectiveness in improving education quality.

• Past experiences with central universities suggest central influence might inject ideological or political biases into academia.
• The new regulations, while attempting to clarify, add further complexity to Centre-state relations.