The Hindu Business Line : Case of, and for, private universities

The Supreme Court declaring over a hundred `universities' in Chattisgarh null and void has brought into focus the mockery being made of the rules and guidelines of the University Grants Commission. While this gladdens the hearts of academics yearning for world-class standards in Indian universities, it also raises questions that go beyond the public-private debate to taking a closer look at what the UGC has really achieved, says Bhanoji Rao.

THE Supreme Court recently took up the case of private universities. On February 12, the apex court declared as `unconstitutional' a provision in the Chhattisgarh Private Sector Universities Act, 2002 permitting establishment of private universities. The court declared as null and void the establishment of over a hundred private universities under that law.

Several thousand students who `benefited' by gaining admission to the private universities must now be a worried lot. To help alleviate the students' distress, the court directed the affected institutions to seek affiliation to existing universities in the State.

The Supreme Court judgment was the outcome of a petition by a former chairman of the University Grants Commission, Prof Yashpal. The petitioner questioned the legality of bypassing the UGC, the body vested with the authority to examine the infrastructure available with and the courses of studies prescribed by an institution before it is conferred a deemed university status.

Prof Yashpal has done the nation a great service by bringing into focus the unacceptable practices going in some places and some instances in the name of higher education. For instance, under the Chhattisgarh Private Sector Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, it seems several education shops gained recognition as universities. It is widely reported that a `university' offered a degree in shoe uppers and maintenance and another has listed a `garage and automotive' degree.

It is only natural to take the Supreme Court judgment to apply only to universities established under the Chhattisgarh Act. The ICFAI University, for instance, clarified in the media that the Supreme Court judgment was confined only to universities established under the Chhattisgarh Private Universities Act and that ICFAI University was also notified as a university through the ICFAI University Act 2003 (Uttaranchal), The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University Act 2004 (Tripura) and The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University Act 2004 (Sikkim). Well, if not one, there is the other.

Several pertinent points are culled out from the media reports on the case. First, the apex court accepted the argument that the Chhattisgarh Act was unconstitutional because it `gave' uncanalised and unguided power to the State to allow the setting up of universities without complying with the infrastructure, faculty positions and financial resources as prescribed by the UGC.

Second, despite the judgment quashing the establishment of more than hundred private universities, the Court recognised a State's and a private individual's "right to establish a university". The judges clarified that the right to establish a university did not mean that an educational institution or a private person or a body having no proper facilities could be recognised as a university.

Third, they observed that every State legislature passing a law enabling the establishment of private universities should insist that "only an institution with all the infrastructure facilities where teaching and research on a wide range of subjects and of a particular level are actually done, acquires the status of a university". This statement is music to the ears of any serious academic craving to see internationally honoured academic standards in our universities.

Finally, the Bench underlined the role of the UGC in recognising universities. The Chhattisgarh Act did not provide for a UGC role and, hence, could not hold water legally in regard to establishing private universities.

Thus, the issue is not whether to have private universities or not. The apex court did not place a ban on private universities per se. As long as UGC recognition is available, it is fine to have a private university.

The UGC already has a set of regulatory guidelines in its Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities Regulations, 2003 available on the UGC Web site.

In the first section (Background) of the Regulations, it is noted that a suitable regulatory mechanism is essential by way of laying down the conditions specifically for the establishment and operation of private universities for safeguarding the interests of the student community with adequate emphasis on the quality of education and to avoid commercialisation of higher education (emphasis added).

For the purpose of these regulations, a private university "means a university duly established through a State/Central Act by a sponsoring body, viz. a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or a Public Trust or a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956."

The regulations specify that each private university shall be established by a separate State Act and shall conform to the relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, as amended from time to time.

The Regulations have three key sections dealing with establishment and recognition, inspection and consequences of violations. In regard to recognition, for instance, it is stated that a private university shall fulfil the minimum criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructure facilities, financial viability, etc, as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other statutory bodies concerned such as AICTE, etc.

Similar provisions are written in regard to courses of study. It is also stated that the admission procedure and fixing of fees shall be in accordance with the norms/guidelines prescribed by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies.

There are provisions for periodic inspection of the private university and its various constituents. Finally, if UGC were to find that the private university has, even after getting an opportunity to do so, failed to comply with the provisions of any of the Regulations, then the UGC could pass an order prohibiting the private university from offering any course for the award of the first degree and/or the post-graduate degree/diploma, as the case may be, till the deficiency is rectified.

The Regulations are as general as possible giving ample scope for discretion. Some might not agree with the effectiveness of such discretion.

For instance, a comment posted on February 15 on a Web site `prayatna.typepad.com' has the following: "While I do agree ... that all private universities must conform to some basic infrastructure and quality norms, ... the control of the UGC/AICTE and other such regulatory bodies over the certification of universities leads to corruption and harassment (to different extents in different cases). But... we will have to put up with UGC's control till we can arrive at a better working solution."

The matter for discussion and critical review, therefore, ought to be the effectiveness of the UGC itself, in general, in the regulatory sphere and in promoting quality education.

What have been the signal achievements of UGC in regard to promoting quality? Has the Commission promoted quality or has quality been left to the IITs and the IIMs while the Commission has been spearheading growth of quantity?

If it were just a matter of promoting quantity, there is hardly any case for doing away with private universities, but there is a strong case for promoting effective regulation sans controls.

When one reads about Harvard University, which stands tall among the universities of the world, with its Nobel Laureates and close to four centuries of history, the most striking feature one comes across is its endowment fund, now standing at $22 billion. Does it matter if Harvard is private?

(The author is Professor Emeritus, GITAM Institute of Foreign Trade, Visakhapatnam. Feedback can be sent to bhanoji@vsnl.net)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
For fiscal rectitude

Budget: On the soft trial

Budget 2005-06: Stage-managed humaneness

Battle ground Parliament

Case of, and for, private universities

Copycats, beware the doghouse

A blow to senior citizens

Transaction tax