UGC regulations: A degree of overreach?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established with a primary mandate to fund universities and ensure academic standards in higher education. Over the years, it played a crucial role in shaping India’s academic landscape by providing grants for research, faculty development, and institutional infrastructure. However, in recent years, the UGC has withdrawn from its primary funding role, shifting it to mechanisms such as the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) and Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA), and focused on expanding its regulatory control, extending into university governance in ways that raise concerns over its constitutional legitimacy, financial rationality, and institutional autonomy.

The Draft 2025 Regulations marks a significant shift towards centralisation by proposing a governor-led selection process that effectively reduces the role of state governments in leadership appointments, despite state universities being fully funded by the state. This move not only disregards established administrative principles that link financial responsibility with the decision-making authority but also contradicts judicially upheld autonomy of state institutions. This raises critical questions about its constitutional and practical viability.

Various courts including the Supreme Court have consistently reaffirmed the autonomy of state governments in university governance. In Kalyani Mathivanan v. K V Jeyaraj, the Supreme Court held that while the UGC can prescribe minimum academic standards, it cannot override state laws governing appointments. Similarly, in Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, the court ruled that the UGC’s function is to coordinate and maintain academic quality, not dictate administrative policies. The 2025 regulations, however, contradict these rulings by attempting to centralise power, diminishing the role of state legislatures, their respective acts, and elected governments in a domain where they have constitutional authority.

Beyond legal concerns, the regulations introduce a financial imbalance. The principle of financial accountability dictates that those who fund an institution should have a decisive role in its governance. By imposing a governor-controlled appointment process, the regulations separate financial responsibility from administrative control, creating an inefficient governance structure where the decision-making power is concentrated at the centre, while the states continue to bear the financial burden.

The regulations also pose a serious risk to equity and inclusivity in higher education. State universities play a critical role in identifying potential leaders with a good understanding of local education needs and government goals. By reducing state influence, the regulations could weaken existing equity frameworks, potentially diminishing representation from underprivileged groups. A centralised governance model, detached from regional realities, may prioritise bureaucratic efficiency over social justice, ultimately limiting opportunities for historically disadvantaged candidates.

Furthermore, local leadership is essential to ensuring that universities align with the specific research, innovation, and education priorities of individual states. Many states have unique economic, cultural, and environmental challenges that require specialised research and education strategies. A governance structure that limits state autonomy risks disconnecting universities from local needs, making them less effective in contributing to regional development, policy-making, and industry collaboration. Universities should not be governed through a one-size-fits-all national template but should be responsive to the states they serve, ensuring that their academic and research goals contribute meaningfully to local progress.

The constitutional division of power under the Concurrent List allows both central and state governments to legislate on education. However, Supreme Court judgements, including T M A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, have reaffirmed that while the UGC can set academic guidelines, it cannot dictate governance structures for state-funded institutions. The draft regulations grants unilateral control to governors instead of functioning on the aid and advice of the elected state government.

Skewed priorities

Equally concerning is the UGC’s shifting focus from its original mandate which is to allocate grants and improve academic standards. However, with the withdrawal of direct financial assistance, its role as a funding body has diminished. Instead of focusing on research development, faculty improvement, and global academic collaborations, the UGC is now expanding its regulatory reach into governance matters, overstepping its jurisdiction and expertise. This move distracts from urgent priorities – India still lags in research funding, international rankings, and faculty support. If the UGC is to remain relevant, it must prioritise academic excellence over administrative control.

Collectively, these 2025 draft regulations threaten the inclusivity and accessibility of India’s higher education system. By imposing a one-size-fits-all governance model, they fail to recognise regional diversity and social justice priorities. State universities have historically played a crucial role in ensuring representation for underprivileged groups, and any attempt to dilute their autonomy could reverse decades of progress in equitable education policies. A governance structure that is detached from local concerns will likely reduce opportunities for disadvantaged leaders, weakening India’s commitment to social mobility and equal access to education leadership.

For a balanced higher education framework, the UGC must engage in wider consultations with state governments, academic experts, and social justice advocates. Any governance reform should be collaborative rather than imposed, ensuring that it aligns with constitutional principles, financial realities, and academic priorities. Instead of centralising control, policies should encourage a cooperative approach between the centre and states, strengthening academic standards while preserving institutional autonomy and inclusivity.

Ultimately, the UGC’s role should return to its core mission – promoting academic excellence, research funding, and faculty development, all of which is crucial in this age of AI. Regulatory expansion into university governance will only distract from pressing educational challenges, weakening the very institutions it is meant to support to ensure that India’s higher education system remains diverse, inclusive, and academically vibrant.

(The writer is the founding Vice Chancellor, Bengaluru City University)