Karnataka Draft Higher Education Bill: A missed opportunity

Atre Committee had the opportunity to suggest a new way forward for appointing VC, but did not take it

Karnataka is vigorously pushing the implementation of the New Educational Policy 2022. The state government appointed a committee headed by Dr Vasudev Atre in 2020 to draft a comprehensive Karnataka State Higher Education Institutions Bill to replace the existing Universities Acts. The Atre Committee recently submitted the draft Bill to the government. It is appropriate to critically examine the key proposals contained in the Bill.

The Bill covers aspects relating to the appointment of vice chancellors, Board of Governors (BOG), Board of Management (BOM), and an academic senate, which will replace the existing syndicates and academic councils in Karnataka’s universities. The draft Bill also covers the constitution of boards of studies, appointment of faculty, research, innovation and consultancy boards, a new body to be set up by universities, affiliation of colleges, which will end by 2030 as per the NEP mandate, finances of institutions and many other related questions. The draft Bill runs into 92 pages.

The Atre Committee has prepared the Bill keeping in mind the guidelines provided in the NEP regarding the restructuring of positions and academic bodies. In our public universities, the vice chancellor occupies the pivotal position with the responsibility of providing institutional leadership, but unfortunately the appointment of VCs is most often mired in controversies. The Bill envisages the VC of a university to be appointed from out of a panel of names recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SSC) consisting of an eminent academician -- a vague term that can be, and in reality, is often misused and an educationist, who can be a businessman-cum-educationist or administrator.

It is merely a change in nomenclature borrowed from the corporate world. Unfortunately, the old system may continue, as the draft Bill states that one of the members of the SSC shall be nominated by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the state government, one by the BOG, and the other by the academic senate. The BOG shall appoint one of these members as the chairman of the SSC. This is old wine in a new bottle as the chances of government or Governor’s nominees becoming chairperson of the committee are higher, as it is now, and may continue. The only saving grace is the recommendation that serving VCs or those connected with the affairs of the state government or the university or any college or institution connected with the university shall not be nominated to the SSC. The power of removal of a VC is also vested with the BOG. The Atre Committee had a chance to do away with interference and/or manipulation in the constitution of SSCs by removing the role of governor/government. But it has not done so.

The BOG (the present syndicate) will be the principal governing body of the university and will decide the mission of the university. The Bill envisages that the BOG shall be the final authority and will make all appointments and take all decisions regarding governance. It states that the chairperson will be from among eminent persons distinguished in the field of education, arts/design/humanities/science /technology or drawn from public life. The clause is too generic in nature.

The fear is that the existing systems under a new name may continue as the appointment will be made by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the government, giving them the ultimate powers. The Atre Committee had an opportunity to recommend an independent Collegium performing such a function rather than leaving it to the government. That the BOG will also have a nominee of the government or from the State Higher Education Council is a plea for continuity.

The VC also will be an ex-officio member with four other ‘eminent’ persons drawn from different walks of life, with provision for representation for SC/ST, OBC/minorities and a woman and experts being invited whenever necessary. All academic and administrative decisions will emanate from the BOG. Since the suggestions contained in the draft Bill are too generic, it is hoped that there would not be any dilution in the functioning of these authorities including that of the Board of Management (BOM), which will be the executive body of the university. The BOM, whose composition will also be on the same lines as that of the BOG, will be competent to take decisions on behalf of the BOG subject to its ratification subsequently. The VC is allowed to choose the registrars for administration and evaluation, which may ensure smooth coordination.

The Bill recommends the creation of the post of a Pro-Vice Chancellor, which, strictly speaking, will be an ornamental position with no real powers and functions. For the occupants of such office, it may be a stepping stone to go up the ladder! The academic senate, consisting of members drawn from diverse fields, is envisaged to be the principal academic body.

As regards finances of the universities, the sources identified are:

Grants by the UGC and state governments, which are dwindling over the years;

Donations, endowments, including from foreign institutions, which are hardly received by public universities

Income from fees, which also will not be of great magnitude as they cannot be raised due to student pressures.

In reality, universities are starved for funds as the government will not spend 6% of the GDP on education. With affiliation function ceasing in 2030, another source of funding will dry up. Clearly, an unenviable situation for our public universities. The government should take a detailed feedback from different stakeholders, publicise them and formulate a new Act which will help raise the bar of universities in Karnataka.

(The writer is former Dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University.)