The University Grants Commission (UGC)’s 2025 draft regulations are an unmitigated disaster, a ham-fisted attempt to micromanage India’s higher education system. The guidelines are riddled with ambiguities, contradictions, and a blatant disregard for the complexities of academic life. By prioritising research publications and patents over teaching and service, the regulations perpetuate a culture of academic elitism, where faculty members are forced to churn out mediocre research to appease the powers that be, rather than focus on providing quality education to their students.
The regulations’ emphasis on “Indian Knowledge Systems” is a thinly veiled attempt to impose a narrow, nationalist agenda on academia, stifling critical thinking and intellectual diversity. Overly broad language phrases like “recognised contributions” are too vague, making it difficult to determine what constitutes a valid contribution. The lack of clear definitions and guidelines is a recipe for disaster which leaves room for misinterpretation and subjective judgement and invites arbitrary decision-making and cronyism.
The draft regulations strive to shift the focus from fairness in selection to whims and fancies of the selection committee. While the existing regulations make it obligatory to the selection committee to assess a candidate for their research and publication, domain knowledge and presentation, and articulation, the suggested version necessitates the selection committees to base their judgement on nine noteworthy contributions. These consist of “Innovative Teaching Contributions; Research or Teaching Lab Development; Consultancy/Sponsored Research funding; Teaching contributions in Indian languages; Teaching-Learning and Research in Indian Knowledge System; Student Internship/Project Supervision; Digital Content Creation for MOOCs; Community Engagement and Service; and Startup”.
The regulations line up research and publications over teaching and service, possibly leading to one-sidedness in academic accountabilities. The focus on research publications and patents overlooks other valuable academic contributions, such as classroom teaching, curriculum development, and mentoring. It has been also left to the selection committee’s discretion to decide whether the research publications are in peer-reviewed journals, whether the book chapters are in books published by renowned publishers, and whether a candidate’s contributions in the nine areas are notable.
This redrafting of the regulations should have marked its significance in the annals of higher education. The direct recruitment and the CAS promotion to the post of associate professor and professorship have a marked time gap. In the case of direct recruitment, 8 to 10 years of experience as an assistant professor is a prerequisite whereas in CAS, it is 12 to 15 years, and no jump from an assistant professor to a professorship is possible. There is no valid argument for this time gap; someone outside the system can learn and gain experience within eight years whereas someone within the system needs 12 years or 15 years does not sound coherent and logical. Unfortunately, this draft also has not paid heed to this anomaly.
The recruitment for the post of Vice-Chancellor considers persons with ten years of experience and practice at a senior level in industry, public administration, public policy, and/or public sector undertakings and who have a proven track record of significant academic contributions. The search-cum-selection committee would now be constituted by the Visitor/Chancellor. It shall include a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the UGC Chairman, and a nominee of the apex authority of the university. The Vice-Chancellor would also be selected by the Visitor/Chancellor.
Unclear criteria
The deliberate attempt to not be clear on what it means to be ‘senior’ in bureaucracy and industry is going to be a bone of contention. In the university system, the pay scales are different, a professor has a basic pay at entry Rs 144,200 whereas there is no such scale in bureaucracy to work for another 10 years. A joint secretary-level officer with only ten years of experience will be at par with a professor-level pay. Similarly, the industry does not have similar pay scale structures; thus the ‘senior’ is open to interpretation and discretion of the government and could open a Pandora’s box. Moreover, the idea of academic leadership will be under severe threat.
The regulations enforce excessive bureaucratic controls, limiting institutional autonomy and flexibility. They focus on a one-size-fits-all approach and fail to account for diverse institutional contexts, needs, and priorities. It should be remembered that India is a union of states, and higher education is on the Concurrent List, with both the central and state governments vested with powers to legislate on education matters.
Furthermore, the regulations’ tokenistic gestures towards diversity and inclusion are an insult to the very communities they purport to serve. The requirement for representation in selection committees is a hollow promise, devoid of any meaningful commitment to addressing the systemic inequalities that have long plagued India’s academia. The emphasis on research publications and patents may unfairly disadvantage candidates from marginalised communities who may not have had equal access to resources and opportunities. The requirement for representation in selection committees from SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/ Persons with Disabilities categories is insufficient, as it does not guarantee meaningful participation or decision-making power. The regulations’ silence on issues like caste-based discrimination, sexual harassment, and disability rights is deafening, a stark reminder of the UGC’s complicity in perpetuating the status quo.
The UGC’s 2025 draft regulations are a poorly drafted, overly prescriptive, and potentially discriminatory set of guidelines. They must be rejected in their entirety, and replaced with a more nuanced, inclusive, and democratic framework that prioritises academic freedom and intellectual diversity. A thorough revision is necessary to address these concerns and create a more inclusive, equitable, and effective framework for higher education in India.
(Navneet is a faculty at the Central University of Himachal Pradesh,
Dharamshala; Kamlaxi is a faculty at the Rani Channamma University,
Belagavi)