The Hindu Editorial: Published on 21st Jan 2025:
Why in News?
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has proposed amendments to its 2010 regulations concerning the selection and appointment of vice-chancellors.
Non-BJP-ruled states have raised objections, claiming the draft regulation violates federal principles and undermines state autonomy in higher education governance.
The controversy has reignited debates over the constitutional scope of the UGC and the balance of power between the Union and State governments.
Constitutional Issues
Violation of Federal Principles:
States argue that the regulation intrudes on their rights to govern universities established under state laws.
The Constitution provides education as a concurrent subject, but states claim a larger role in managing universities within their jurisdiction.
Overreach of UGC’s Mandate:
The UGC Act, 1956, is primarily aimed at maintaining educational standards, not regulating administrative appointments.
Critics argue that prescribing qualifications and procedures for vice-chancellors exceeds the UGC's statutory authority.
Supremacy of State Laws:
Under Article 254 of the Constitution, a state law inconsistent with a central law can only be overridden by central legislation, not subordinate regulations like those of the UGC.
States assert that the UGC’s regulations cannot override their legislative frameworks for university governance.
Key Legal Precedents
Bombay High Court’s Suresh Patilkhede Case (2011):
Declared that vice-chancellor appointments do not directly impact education standards and should not fall under the UGC’s purview.
Supreme Court’s Kalyani Mathivanan Case (2015):
Affirmed that UGC regulations are binding on universities but upheld that they are recommendatory for state universities.
Ambiguities in Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court ruling also noted procedural inconsistencies in how UGC regulations gain legislative approval.
Core Arguments
UGC’s Perspective:
Broader qualifications, including experience in industry and public administration, aim to diversify leadership and bring expertise into academia.
States’ Concerns:
Such changes undermine their control over university administration and decision-making.
Regulations are seen as an indirect way for the Union government to exert influence over state universities.
Academic and Legal Concerns:
Critics question whether these changes align with the constitutional role of the UGC in maintaining standards, rather than governing administrative roles.
Implications
Legal Challenges:
The regulation may face judicial scrutiny over its constitutionality and alignment with the UGC Act.
Centre-State Relations:
The dispute underscores ongoing tensions over federalism and the autonomy of states in concurrent subjects like education.
Impact on Higher Education:
If enforced, the regulation could change the profile of university leadership, but it risks politicization and resistance from states.
Way Forward
Clarity in Legislative Intent:
The UGC Act needs clearer provisions to delineate the scope of the commission’s powers, especially in administrative matters.
Strengthening Cooperative Federalism:
Dialogues between the Centre and states should address concerns and build consensus on educational governance.
Balancing Standards and Autonomy:
Policies should strike a balance between maintaining high standards in education and respecting state legislative frameworks.
Judicial Review:
Courts may need to clarify the extent to which UGC regulations can bind state universities, addressing ambiguities in prior rulings.
This controversy reflects the broader challenge of harmonizing educational standards with constitutional federalism in India.
