Higher
Education Commission: Pathway for a Facilitating Ecosystem
Published in the University News
The Higher
Education Commission of India (HECI), proposed for replacing the University
Grants Commission, would pave way for enhancing quality and innovativeness in higher
education in India. However, the new body would be able to focus well over capacity
building through counseling and mentoring the higher education institutions
(HEIs), if the powers of ‘revocation of authorization’ under section 20 and
powers of imposing penalty under section 23 are given to an independent
tribunal, instead of vesting these powers into this new body i.e. the HECI.
The
initiative of the Union government to replace University Grants Commission
(UGC) with Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), for eliminating ‘Inspection
Raj’ and minimizing interference in the management of higher educational
institutions (HEIS) would usher higher education in the country into a new era
of quality and excellence. The reforms proposed by the government through the proposed
Draft Higher Education Commission of India Bill, shall provide the requisite
autonomy to the HEIs, key to promote excellence and facilitate holistic growth.1
Indeed, it is also in tune with the views of the Association of Indian
Universities, submitted to the Drafting Committee on ‘New Education Policy’, wherein
it was recommended “to explore setting up of new body that not only plays the
role as a regulatory authority but also can serve as driver for growth of
quality and innovations in educational institutions.”2 A host
independent of experts too has kept on expressing serious concern at over-regulation
of higher education, dampening fair and holistic growth of higher education in
the country. Even, the CEO of NITI Aayog, Amitabh Kant has conceded that the HEIs
in India are ‘over regulated and over-governed’.3 It would
not be out of place to mention that, the “Asian countries such as China,
Malayasia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, where higher education and
professional education has flourished well, have been following a very
liberalised regime in comparison to countries such as Pakistan, Nepal and
Bangladesh, where education has remained traditional, because of strict
government policies.4 India is also no exception, as there is
no dearth of comments alleging “surfeit of regulation and deficit of governance
in higher education”.5 Therefore, the union government has
rightly highlighted the purpose of the proposed change by using the words “Less
Government and more Governance.6 A host of studies and
write-ups have long been stressing, since last several years that, higher
education needs more autonomy for excellence with lesser regulation.7
The best universities of the world such as Harvard and Stanford could reach and
sustain at the top of the pyramid of higher education, because of the absolute
autonomy vested in them by their governments and society.8
Even
the Gajendragadkar Committee of UGC, as early as in 1971, has opined in favor
of university autonomy not only in words but, in spirit as well. The
Gajendragadkar Committee Report (UGC, 1971, p. 9-10) states “The concept of
University autonomy is often misunderstood It is not a ‘legal concept’, not
even a ‘constitutional concept’. It is an ethical concept and an academic
concept. This concept does not question that, in a democratic society like
ours, legislatures are ultimately sovereign, and have a right to discuss and
determined the question of policy relating to education, including higher
education… The concept of university autonomy, however, means that it would be
appropriate on the part of democratic legislatures not be interfere with the
administration of university life, both academic and non-academic. The claim
for autonomy is made by the universities not as a matter of privilege, but on
the ground that such autonomy is a condition precedent if the universities are
to discharge their duties and obligations effectively and efficiently.”9
Indeed,
the students and parents are the best judge, as they have the most crucial stakes for their lives.
Therefore, a learned vice-chancellor rightly points out that “in this age of
information and technology, complete information is available on social and
digital media. Students and their parents spend a considerable time in
comparing and contrasting institutions in terms of numerous parameters such as
infrastructure, curriculum, learning outcomes and placements.“10
But indeed, on perusal of this
new Bill, it appears that this newly proposed commission would not be able to bring
the desired change when it has been equipped with overbearing powers more harsh
than those enjoyed by the UGC, under section 20 and 23.11 These
overbearing power of ‘Revocation of Authorization’ to grant degrees and impose
penalties are sure to disorient the HECI and swerve it from playing its due
role of capacity building, mentoring and counseling the HEIs for excellence,
and in putting in place a facilitating and enabling ecosystem, which is the
need of hour and purpose of bringing the HECI into existence, viz. that of
having an agency to focus exclusively on academic matters. The basic doctrine
of separation of powers between supervisory and adjudicating agencies
necessitates creation of equipping the adjudicating tribunal alone to decide
over imposing penalties or revoking authorization to issue degrees on being
proposed by the executing agency the HECI. Revocation of Authorization under
section 20 or penalties for non-compliance should be the prerogative of an
independent tribunal, instead of HECI. Otherwise, if the agency is being
created to nurture a facilitating and enabling ecosystem for academic
excellence may altogether deviate from its due role of enhancing quality in
education. Its officers would relish the authority of revocation of
authorization and imposition of penalties more than playing the role of a
capacity builder. Therefore, an independent tribunal needs to be created to
decide over the revocation of authorization or imposition of penalty for
non-compliance on being recommended by the HECI, after duly hearing the parties.
Otherwise, there is an imminent danger that sooner or later this agency may get
engaged and entangled more in using these powers available under section 20 and
23 instead of fulfilling its role of facilitating excellence. Government while
embarking upon the path for enhancing quality and innovativeness in higher
education should repose utmost trust and faith in the system, including
education providers, and the faculty, instead of assigning penal powers to this
new agency. It would not be out of place to mention that several quality
institutions have flourished, without statutory and governmental monitoring.
The Kashi Vidyapeeth is an example of 1920s and the Indian Business School,
Hyderabad is a contemporary icon. ‘The Kashi Vidhyapeeth’ was established in
1921 (February 10), during the non-cooperation movement under the erstwhile alien
rule of British, where they too did not revoke its (Vidhyapeeth’s) authorization
to grant degrees, especially when it had its intent to attain ‘Swaraj’ from the
British Rule. It, along with the Gujarat Vidhyapeeth was outside the control
and support of the government. Established with the resolve to keep the
university (Kashi Vidhyapeeth), away from bureaucratic and government
interference, including those of recognition and grants, it worked altogether
independently. Today as well, we have premier institutes like Indian Business
School, performing very excellently, on account of being beyond the scope of any
regulatory interference. Students and parents are the best judge and employer’s
trust is conclusive evidence of quality. Statutory authorities should play
greater role in putting in place a facilitating and enabling ecosystem. If we
take the case of the Kashi Vidyapeeth, then we see that, it was only in 1963
that it conceded to get the status of ‘’Deemed University. Though, it continues
to act independently. It was Pt. Kamlapati Tripathi, the then Chief Minister of
Uttar Pradesh, an aluminous of the university, moved out of his affection and esteem towards his alma
mater, initiated a state government
resolution to have his alma mater acknowledged as a statutory
university. Today, it has 400+
affiliated colleges, one of the largest universities in the country.
Needless to say, that the UGC
has also got entangled in issuing overarching
regulations for all the universities, leaving relatively lesser scope of
autonomy for the Boards of Management (BOMs) or the Vice-Chancellors of the
universities, key for healthy growth of higher education in a vast county like
India, almost more than 5200 times vast than Singapore in area. Now, to ensure
that the HECI is not tempted to wield its powers of penalization and
revocations, instead of focusing over instilling quality, excellence and
innovativeness in higher education. These powers be vested with a separate
tribunal or an ombudsman. In every other domain of statutory regulation these
are separate tribunals like, Competition Law Appellate Tribunal, Intellectual
Properly Appellate Board, and Company Law Appellate Tribunal and so on. So, HECI
should be also assigned an exclusive role of capacity enhancement alone, and the
penal powers of sections 20 and 23 should be vested in a separate tribunal.
Notes:
1. “Higher Education: Centre to scrap UGC, replace it with new body, HECI,” Press Trust of India, New Delhi, June 27, 2018, reported by Financial Express, June 28, 2018.
2. Qamar F., Sharma P.B. (2018), “AIU’s view on The New National Policy on Education”, Presentation made by AIU before the Drafting Committee on New National Policy headed by Prof (Dr.) K. Kasturi Rangan, Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, 10 pp.
3. “NITI Aayog CEO pushes for reforms in India’s over-regulated higher education sector,” Outlook-The News Scroll, July 13, 2017. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/niti-aayog-ceo-pushes-for-reforms-in-indias-overregulated-higher-education-sector/1099445
4. RS Bawa (2017), “Higher education needs autonomy for excellence, not more regulation,” Hindustan Times, September 08, 2017. https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/higher-education-needs-autonomy-for-excellence-not-more-regulation/story-xIpHUeQIxKNdMs65Bx HZpM.html
5. Thomas Manuel (2017),” In India's Higher Education, Surfeit of Regulation and Deficit of Governance,” The Wire, March 16, 2017. https://thewire.in/books/in-indias-higher-education-surfeit-of-regulation-and-deficit-of-governance.
6. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, June 27, 2018.
7. Ibid 3
8. Ibid 3
9. University Grants Commission, 1971, Report of the Committee on the Governance of Universities and Colleges, (Gajendragadkar Committee Report), UGC, New Delhi, 68pp.
10. Ibid 3
11. Draft, Higher Education Commission of India (Repeal of University Grants Commission Act) Act 2018, Section 20 and Section 23.
