Overarching concern is that draft UGC norms, instead of addressing challenges, may only exacerbate divide between Centre and states, and may jeopardise autonomy of universities
The Union Education Minister recently unveiled the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, titled Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education. It marks a notable departure, as a UGC document is being released by the education ministry, raising concerns about potential political interference by the ruling government in the recruitment and career progression of teachers. Against the backdrop of diminishing state funding for higher education, the draft also appears to underscore a troubling effort to subordinate the research priorities of publicly funded universities to align with corporate interests.
The draft UGC regulations for teacher recruitment in higher education institutions (HEIs), introduced alongside the national education policy 2020, risk reinforcing regressive changes. They align with the NEP-driven four-year undergraduate programme and dilute academic rigour by allowing PhD holders or NET/SET qualifiers in a subject, regardless of prior UG/PG study in that discipline, to qualify for teaching roles.
The regulations emphasise nine ‘notable contributions’ (e.g., innovative teaching, research, community engagement, startups) as key recruitment and promotion criteria, posing challenges for entry-level applicants, especially in underdeveloped regions with limited resources. The persistence of interview-centric weightage, despite criticism of its potential for favouritism, further devalues the teaching experience. Additionally, the arbitrary authority given to selection committees to evaluate publications and contributions raises concerns about bias and nepotism, threatening the fairness of the recruitment process.
The draft regulations for promotions place undue emphasis on ‘notable contributions’ like research, consultancy, lab development, and corporate-funded initiatives, undermining the primary teaching responsibilities of undergraduate teachers. The lack of clarity on weekly workload norms and the unrealistic demands for research outputs in resource-constrained environments create concerns about extended working hours and reliance on private funding. Points promoting student internships, Indian Knowledge Systems, and MOOCs reflect a corporate-driven agenda that risks undermining academic autonomy, global perspectives, and public-funded education.
Moreover, the revised criteria for counting prior ad-hoc or contractual service jeopardise the years of teaching experience previously recognised for promotions, as seen in Delhi University’s 2007 resolution. The proposed biannual schedule for promotions may lead to delays and financial losses compared to the earlier system where promotions were effective from the date of eligibility. Overall, these changes threaten the academic and professional autonomy of educators, necessitating strong collective resistance.
The draft norms propose removing the 10% cap on contractual employment of teachers from the 2018 regulations, potentially institutionalising contractualisation and casualisation in higher education. This shift threatens to downgrade teachers’ service conditions, weaken the teaching-learning process, and reduce permanent hiring amid workload changes, higher teacher-student ratios, and the rise of online learning. Additionally, the clause on Professors of Practice allows HEIs to hire up to 10% of professionals from non-academic fields, fostering corporate influence and creating a fragmented faculty structure. This undermines academic integrity and diminishes the role of permanent faculty, assuming their inadequacy in addressing societal and economic needs.
The UGC draft regulations for appointing vice-chancellors (VCs) have sparked significant debate regarding Centre-state relations, especially concerning the autonomy of state universities. Released on January 7, the draft aims to clarify ambiguities in the 2018 guidelines but has instead heightened concerns over the centralisation of control in higher education. The draft undermines federal autonomy by giving the Centre more influence over state-funded universities.
A key point of contention is the expanded role of the Governor, who, as Chancellor of most state universities, represents the Centre in the VC appointment process. Under the 2018 guidelines, a search committee of ‘eminent persons’ in higher education would shortlist VC candidates, and the Chancellor would select from the recommendations. These committees were traditionally formed according to state laws. However, the draft regulations propose that the Governor will now constitute the search committee, which would include nominees from the Chancellor (Governor), the UGC chairman, and a member of the university’s apex body. This change effectively sidesteps state governments and is seen as turning VCs into representatives of the Centre.
This proposal comes at a time when states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and West Bengal have already seen conflicts over gubernatorial involvement in VC appointments, leading to legal battles at the Supreme Court. The draft regulations have been met with sharp criticism for weakening state authority in a traditionally shared space under the Concurrent List, raising fears about further erosion of federal autonomy.
The draft also expands the eligibility criteria for VCs. While previous guidelines emphasised academic credentials and a strong academic background, the draft allows candidates with at least ten years of experience in industry, public policy, administration, or public-sector undertakings, provided they have a scholarly track record. This shift has raised concerns about the potential decline in academic standards and the possible appointment of non-academic figures who may lack the expertise to oversee research, faculty appointments, and educational quality. New provisions could lead to ideologically motivated appointments, especially given controversies over personnel choices in central universities.
The draft also proposes extending the VC’s tenure from three to five years to ensure leadership stability. However, the overarching concern is that these regulations, instead of addressing challenges in higher education, may only exacerbate the divide between the Centre and states, potentially compromising the autonomy of state universities. To address these concerns, the UGC must reconsider provisions that diminish state roles in university governance and focus on fostering autonomous institutions dedicated to academic excellence.
(Shivanand Pandit is a tax specialist, financial adviser and guest lecturer based in Goa.)
