How excessive regulation is holding back India’s higher education

India’s higher education system has been inundated with regulations since 2007. The pace and frequency of notifying new regulations have particularly accelerated since the notification of the National Education Policy of 2020 (NEP 2020). 

In many countries, known for excellence in higher education, academic reforms are left to the higher educational institutions. At the most, they may provide a broad framework in the form of the National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF), specifying levels of qualification, admission criteria, credit requirements, and methods and procedures for credit acceptance and transfer, forming a broad framework for the award and recognition of higher education qualifications. However, in India, higher education regulatory authorities, particularly the University Grants Commission (UGC), mandate detailed, binding regulations controlling almost every aspect of higher education. 

The UGC’s regulatory ambit spans undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, PhD, faculty qualifications, minimum standards for the award of degrees, norms and standards for faculty appointment and promotion, undergraduate higher education qualification framework (UGHEQF), postgraduate higher education qualification framework (PGHEQF), National Vocational Education Qualification Framework (NVEQF), National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF), specification of degrees, pursuing two degrees simultaneously, separate credit framework for undergraduate and postgraduate, and a highly structure sophisticated mechanism enabling students to earn, accumulate, deposit and encash credits through the academic bank of credit (ABC).  

As if these were not enough, the UGC is reported to be finalising the regulation for recognising prior learning. It also issued a draft regulation in December 2024 on minimum standards of instruction for the grant of degrees in suppression of its 2003 regulation, which was amended in 2008 and 2014. This latter regulation mandates universities to commence academic sessions twice yearly and determine their intake capacity based on the UGC norms and standards for physical facilities, faculty, and staff.

This regulation empowers students to pursue any programme of studies irrespective of their academic discipline, so long as they qualify for admission in the national or university-level entrance examination for that discipline. Thus, students with a background in arts or commerce can pursue undergraduate degrees in sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics and humanities graduates might pursue master’s degrees in rocket sciences and space technology. For instance, a master’s degree in science for a student with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, hitherto not possible, would now become a reality. 

Universities have also been required by this regulation to allow students to seek admission directly to the second year of a programme, and recognise prior learning and credits acquired through multiple learning modes and count them for the award of the degree. The regulation reiterates an earlier regulation that allows students to pursue two degrees simultaneously.

The most fascinating feature of the regulation is that it now requires universities to offer three different kinds of bachelor’s degrees: the Standard Degree Programme (SDP), the Accelerated Degree Programme (ADP), and the Extended Degree Programme (EDP).

The SDP will be awarded on completing six or eight semesters of studies. Those with a six-semester bachelor’s degree would be required to do a four-semester master’s degree. In contrast, those with an eight-semester bachelor’s degree could acquire a master’s degree on completing two semesters. 

Universities have been asked to constitute an empowered committee to allow 10% of the students enrolled in SDP to move to ADP and thus complete their degrees. Thus, an eight-semester SDP could be completed in just six semesters, whereas a six-semester undergraduate degree could be completed in five. At the same time, students have also been allowed to complete their bachelor’s degree in the EDP mode, meaning they would be given two extra semesters to complete their SDP. 

In practical terms, this would mean that a few privileged students could complete their four-year undergraduate degrees in three years while others would be required to complete their three-year degree in four years. The regulation requires government departments, private organisations, and recruiting agencies such as the Union Public Service Commission and State Service Commission to consider the degrees done in ADP and EDP modes equivalent to the SDP. 

While this may provide flexibility, it may also create confusion among students, recruiters, and institutions. The regulation’s implementation may be challenging, particularly for institutions with limited resources. The UGC’s emphasis on compliance, coupled with the threat of punitive action -- withdrawal of recognition, barring access to UGC schemes and authority to offer -- may exacerbate these challenges. 

This new regulation may have many good and innovative ideas. Still, these will remain a pipedream without an objective and fair assessment of the institutions’ readiness regarding funds, faculty, and flexibility. Interestingly, while institutions of national importance, like IITs, IIITs, IISERs, and NITs, could be better prepared to experiment with what the regulation suggests, they are outside the purview of the UGC. 

The biggest failing of India’s higher education regulatory bodies has been their propensity to issue regulations without conducting thorough reality checks. 

The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) aptly summarised the state of higher education in India in its 2007 report, stating that it was “over-regulated and under-governed.” Similarly, the Yashpal Committee’s 2009 report on reviving and rejuvenating higher education found the regulatory framework stifling quality and innovation.

The NEP 2020 was scathing in its assessment of higher education regulation, describing it as “heavy-handed with too little effect” and in need of a complete overhaul. The policy advocated for “light but tight regulation” in higher education. Ironically, the institution NEP 2020 recommended disbanding is now spearheading the implementation of the same policy.

(The writer is a former advisor for education in the Planning Commission and a professor of management at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)