On January 6, 2025, the Union Minister for Education, Dharmendra Pradhan, alongside the Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), Prof M Jagadesh Kumar, unveiled the Draft Regulation-2025. This proposed framework establishes the eligibility criteria for faculty appointments and promotions in higher educational institutions while also delineating their service conditions, academic and research responsibilities, and professional code of conduct. To foster a participatory approach, faculty members, academic administrators, and students have been granted a one-month window to submit their feedback and recommendations. The proactive engagement of stakeholders in shaping these regulations underscores a commendable commitment to inclusivity and excellence in academia.
However, merely ten days after the release of Draft Regulation-2025, the central government announced the formation of the Eighth Pay Commission. Historically, the UGC has revised service conditions and salary structures for faculty members and academic personnel in alignment with each successive Pay Commission. The concurrence of these two developments raises concerns about policy coherence, long-term planning, and the seriousness of higher education reforms. While periodic updates are essential for any sector, frequent policy shifts disrupt continuity and create uncertainty. The implementation of the 2018 regulation remains ongoing, presenting an opportunity to address its inconsistencies and shortcomings. Instead, the introduction of an entirely new regulatory framework within just four to five years has generated apprehension among stakeholders. Higher education policies should not be shaped by abrupt and arbitrary changes; such instability weakens institutional foundations. A forward-looking vision and consistent policymaking are imperative to fostering a stable and progressive higher education ecosystem.
An anomalies committee was set up years ago to address discrepancies in the 2018 regulation, yet meaningful progress remains elusive, fueling growing frustration among stakeholders. While the draft regulation claims to foster and safeguard academic talent, it lacks a clear and actionable roadmap to achieve this vision. A truly competitive and professional higher education system requires well-defined mechanisms to distinguish and incentivize merit, dedication, and excellence—ensuring that outstanding educators and researchers are duly recognized rather than being indistinguishably grouped with mediocrity.
A key concern in the draft regulation is the diminished emphasis on subject specialization in faculty recruitment at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It permits faculty appointments in disciplines unrelated to an individual’s PhD specialization, ostensibly to foster interdisciplinarity. However, this approach risks academic dilution by permitting candidates to teach subjects beyond their core expertise. Equally alarming is the decision to qualify four-year undergraduate degree holders for faculty positions in colleges and universities, potentially undermining academic rigor. The 2018 regulation appropriately mandated a PhD as a prerequisite for university faculty appointments, recognizing that university professors are primarily engaged in research, not just teaching. However, this requirement has been systematically weakened and ultimately eliminated.
Similarly, the criteria for research publications have been inconsistently revised – fluctuating between CARE-listed and Scopus-indexed journals – before being further diluted by equating book chapters with research papers, a move that raises serious concerns about academic integrity and scholarly standards.
The draft regulation lacks transparency, objectivity, and a rigorous framework for assessing academic credentials, research contributions, and publications, while simultaneously diminishing the role of interviews. The existing selection process, dominated by influential selection committees, has long been vulnerable to manipulation for vested interests. By once again granting these committees unchecked authority to evaluate candidates based on ambiguous and arbitrary parameters rather than objectively measurable academic achievements, the regulation perpetuates a flawed system. The discretion to determine publication quality and make final appointments remains concentrated within these committees – a deeply troubling issue given the pervasive influence of nepotism, regionalism, favouritism, and caste-based biases in academia. As a result, deserving candidates often remain in perpetual uncertainty due to a lack of influential connections, while less competent individuals secure positions through lobbying, networking, and personal influence. This erosion of meritocracy fosters an environment where academic success is dictated more by affiliations than by scholarly excellence, raising serious concerns about the future of higher education and its capacity to contribute meaningfully to India’s intellectual and economic progress.
If urgent corrective measures are not implemented, public colleges and universities risk meeting the same fate as government schools, which have suffered from declining enrolment and deteriorating academic standards. Today, government schools primarily serve underprivileged students, often attracting enrolment only through incentives such as mid-day meals, free uniforms, textbooks, and scholarships. Is this the trajectory we envision for our public universities and colleges? An increasing number of middle-class parents are opting for private universities—despite their exorbitant fees—due to the lack of viable alternatives for securing quality education. Once-revered public institutions are steadily losing their appeal, a trend that, if left unaddressed, could irreversibly weaken the foundation of accessible and equitable higher education.
Autonomous institutions have increasingly functioned as independent entities, often misusing their autonomy for arbitrary decision-making rather than upholding academic excellence. This unchecked discretion has resulted in widespread irregularities in faculty recruitment, undermining the integrity of the higher education system. To rectify this, an Indian Higher Education Service should be instituted, modelled after the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), to bring all centrally funded institutions under a unified regulatory framework. Faculty vacancies should be consolidated, advertised annually, and filled through a standardized selection process comprising a centralized written examination and interview. A transparent evaluation system should be established, assigning 50 per cent weightage to written examinations, 30 per cent to academic achievements, and 20 per cent to interviews. The interview process must be codified and conducted confidentially to eliminate biases and favouritism. Merit lists should be prepared based on candidates’ rankings, institutional preferences, and domicile considerations, ensuring a fair and efficient appointment process. Furthermore, the practice of hiring faculty on an ad-hoc, contractual, or guest basis should be phased out to prevent the exploitation of educators and promote stability in academic employment.
The draft regulation also proposes capping the tenure of college principals at five years, a policy that threatens institutional stability and continuity by fostering short-termism and reactive decision-making. Effective long-term institutional development hinges on sustained leadership, making stability at the helm essential. Instead, an initial tenure of ten years should be instituted, with comprehensive performance reviews conducted every five years to ensure accountability and progress. Moreover, the appointment process for principals in UGC-funded colleges and vice-chancellors in central universities should be centralized to uphold transparency and reinforce principles of social justice. A unified recruitment system would not only enhance fairness and meritocracy but also optimize time and resources currently expended on conducting separate selection processes across institutions.
Another disconcerting provision in the draft regulation is the inclusion of entrepreneurs, bureaucrats, police and military officers, and corporate executives in the selection pool for vice-chancellor positions. This regressive measure compromises the essence of academic leadership and weakens the governance of higher education institutions. The role of a vice-chancellor demands profound expertise in academic administration, an intricate understanding of institutional frameworks, and a forward-looking vision for educational advancement – qualities that are best cultivated through sustained engagement in academia. Leadership in higher education should be entrusted to individuals with a proven record of scholarship, institutional development, and strategic decision-making within the academic sphere. Rather than expanding eligibility to non-academic professionals, the focus should be on appointing distinguished academicians with demonstrated institutional-building capabilities. Furthermore, those who have exhibited exceptional leadership and transformative vision should be considered for a second term, contingent upon rigorous performance evaluations.
Beyond structural reforms, India’s higher education must prioritize quality assurance, financial sustainability, and global competitiveness. A robust accreditation framework and data-driven evaluation metrics should ensure academic excellence, faculty performance, and research impact. Financial sustainability demands reduced reliance on government funding through industry partnerships, research grants, and philanthropic support. To stay globally relevant, institutions must strengthen international collaborations, student-faculty exchange programs, and cross-border research initiatives, positioning India as a key player in the global knowledge economy.
Higher education policy must be structured around three core pillars: teaching, research, and academic administration, with faculty members systematically trained in these domains based on their aptitudes and competencies. Academic administration, often relegated to an afterthought, demands specialized training, strategic planning, and strong leadership. If India seeks to establish world-class institutions, position itself as a global knowledge leader, and fulfils the aspirations of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, a long-term, meticulously designed policy framework is imperative. Without strategic planning and rigorous implementation, progress in higher education will remain elusive. The UGC must focus on rectifying inconsistencies in the 2018 regulation, addressing challenges in NEP 2020 implementation, and ensuring adequate resources, infrastructure, student-teacher ratios, and high-quality educational materials in Indian languages. Only with clear vision, accountability, and meritocratic principles can India’s higher education system attain global prominence and serve as a catalyst for national development.
