“Higher education must be a transformative force”: UGC Chief on Draft Regulations 2025
The University Grants Commission (UGC) Draft Regulations 2025 have sparked intense debate across the nation. Positioned as a cornerstone of India’s higher education reform under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the draft promises sweeping changes — from a revamped faculty evaluation system to greater institutional autonomy and inclusivity.
In an exclusive interview with UGC Chairman Prof Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, we delve into the vision behind the reforms and address concerns over certain proposals.
What is your vision for higher education in India, and how do you see these draft regulations, which are facing a lot of opposition from different stakeholders, contributing to achieving that goal?
My vision for higher education in India aligns with the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020: To create a system that is equitable, inclusive, multidisciplinary, and globally competitive while fostering critical thinking, innovation, and research.
The draft regulations aim to address longstanding challenges, such as faculty shortages, lack of multi-disciplinary, outdated evaluation metrics, and inflexible governance structures, by introducing measures like replacing rigid Application Programming Interface (API) systems with holistic assessments and promoting interdisciplinary teaching and research.
These draft regulations emphasise the need to shift towards greater institutional flexibility and responsiveness to the evolving needs of students and society. We must work together to ensure that higher education becomes a transformative force in India's development.
How does the UGC plan to address concerns that giving more authority to Chancellors in Vice-Chancellor appointments could affect the autonomy of state universities, especially in opposition-ruled states?
The Draft UGC Regulations 2025 have been designed to ensure a robust process in Vice-Chancellors' selection, aligning with the overarching goals of quality and transparency in higher education.
Unlike the 2018 regulations, the Draft 2025 Regulations provide a detailed and clearly defined framework on who forms the search-cum-selection committee and what the composition of the committee is. This clarity in Draft 2025 Regulations eliminates ambiguity and strengthens the integrity of the selection process.
With the replacement of the API system by subjective "notable contributions," how will the UGC ensure transparency and fairness in faculty recruitment and promotions?
The API system introduced by UGC in 2018 to make recruitment more measurable was far from perfect. The API system excessively emphasised quantifiable metrics, adopting a narrow checkbox approach to evaluate academic and research contributions.
This over-reliance on API scores often drove faculty members to focus on maximising their scores rather than engaging in innovative teaching, interdisciplinary research, industry collaborations, or entrepreneurial initiatives — activities essential for the future of higher education.
The selection committee consists of three subject experts who will use suitable criteria to quantify the "notable contributions," ensuring that these are inclusive of diverse academic and non-academic pursuits. Out of the nine contributions, applicants must show notable contributions in four areas. They can be evaluated by limiting subjectivity.
Consultancy/sponsored research funding: The total funding secured as a Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator is a straightforward metric expressed in monetary terms.
Digital content creation for MOOCs: The number of courses/modules created, the number of learners enrolled, and completion rates are quantifiable metrics.
Start-up (as per intellectual property policies of the higher education institution (HEI), registered with Registrars of Companies (ROC)): Objective criteria include registration status, funding amount raised, and proof of successful government, angel, or venture capital funding.
Research or teaching lab development: Quantifiable through the number of labs established, the equipment installed, the number of students/researchers using the facilities, or the research output generated.
Student internship/project supervision: Measurable by the number of students supervised, completed projects, or internships arranged, along with feedback scores or outcomes.
Innovative teaching contribution: One can use metrics like student feedback, the number of innovative practices introduced, their adoption rate, and student outcomes (example, improved grades, reduced dropout rates).
Teaching contributions in Indian languages: Metrics could include the number of courses taught in Indian languages, students enrolled, and materials developed.
Teaching-learning and research in the Indian Knowledge System: Measurable aspects could include publications, courses introduced, or research output in this domain.
Community Engagement and Service: Quantifiable aspects include the number of community programmes organised, participation rates, and outcomes achieved.
As you can see, all notable contributions can be assessed using carefully chosen parameters.
What is the rationale behind opening Vice-Chancellor positions to professionals outside academia, and how will this ensure the academic ethos of universities is upheld?
The Draft UGC Regulations 2025 do not lower the bar for appointing VCs; they broaden the criteria while ensuring that only candidates with proven credentials and significant academic or scholarly contributions are eligible.
Candidates from the third category (industry, public administration, public policy, public sector undertakings) must demonstrate:
· At least 10 years of senior-level experience in their field.
· A track record of significant academic or scholarly contributions, such as research publications, patents, policy frameworks, or leadership in educational initiatives.
This emphasis on scholarly contributions ensures that only individuals with the intellectual rigour and academic understanding required to lead a university are appointed.
With no cap on contract faculty recruitment, what safeguards are being proposed to ensure job security and fair treatment for teaching staff?
Removing the 10% cap on contract faculty recruitment in the 2025 draft of UGC regulations is a pragmatic step to address university faculty shortages. Many universities have many faculty vacancies, and while efforts are ongoing to recruit regular faculty members, the recruitment process is often lengthy and complex.
In the interim, contract faculty play a critical role in ensuring that academic programs run smoothly and that student's education does not suffer due to administrative delays.
The fear that removing this cap will lead to an overreliance on contract faculty is unfounded. Universities know that only regular faculty members can meaningfully contribute to building a robust research ecosystem, guide PhD students, and secure competitive research funding.
These key pillars define a university's academic excellence and directly impact its ability to climb national and global rankings, such as the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF).
Removing the cap gives universities the flexibility to address immediate operational challenges without being hindered by an arbitrary limit.
To safeguard the interests of contract faculty, universities must also commit to fair treatment and equitable work conditions, such as transparent contracts, competitive pay, and professional development opportunities. These measures will ensure that contract faculty are supported and valued while allowing universities to meet their immediate teaching and administrative needs.
How does the draft address inclusivity in recruitment and promotion, particularly with regard to ensuring opportunities for marginalised communities?
The Draft UGC Regulations 2025 strongly emphasises inclusivity in recruitment and promotion, ensuring that opportunities are accessible to individuals from diverse backgrounds as given below:
The draft regulations encourage interdisciplinary expertise by allowing candidates with different undergraduate (UG) or postgraduate qualifications to apply for positions based on their advanced credentials (example, PhD or NET/State Eligibility Test (SET) in a different discipline). This flexibility broadens the recruitment pool, providing equitable opportunities for individuals who have pursued diverse academic trajectories.
The draft explicitly exempts persons with disabilities from physical fitness tests to recruit and promote physical education and sports personnel. This measure ensures inclusivity in a field that has traditionally been challenging for those with disabilities, creating opportunities for their participation and contribution.
Recognising the importance of linguistic diversity, the regulations encourage publishing books and research in Indian languages. This measure ensures representation and growth for scholars working in Indian languages, many of whom belong to underrepresented and rural communities.
As is the practice, the regulations grant a 5% reduction in qualifying marks for candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC - Non-Creamy Layer), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), and Persons with Disabilities (PwD).
To ensure fair representation in the selection process, the draft mandates the inclusion of a member from the SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/PwD categories in the selection committee if any candidate belongs to these groups or if the committee lacks members from these communities. This provision safeguards fairness and diversity in decision-making processes.
