UGC Draft Regulation

Published On:

UGC's proposed amendments on the appointment of vice-chancellors raise constitutional concerns over federalism and overreach.

The University Grants Commission's draft regulation on vice-chancellor appointments has faced opposition from several state governments, citing a violation of federal principles in the Constitution. The amendments widen the pool of candidates to include professionals with 10+ years of experience in fields like industry or public administration, besides academics with 10 years as a professor. Critics argue this undermines state autonomy in university governance.

The UGC Act of 1956 mandates the Commission to coordinate and determine university education standards, including faculty qualifications. However, the Act does not grant the UGC authority over vice-chancellor appointments, a responsibility traditionally managed by state laws. Legal precedents, like the Suresh Pathrella case, confirm that UGC regulations must align with state laws and the Constitution.

The UGC's new regulation, framed as subordinate legislation, exceeds its parent Act's scope. States argue that appointments fall under their purview unless Parliament explicitly legislates otherwise. Constitutional provisions, including Article 254, prioritize state laws in concurrent matters unless overridden by central legislation approved by the President.

The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court rulings affirm state primacy in these appointments. The UGC's attempt to regulate appointments disrupts the balance of federal powers, risking overreach into state authority. States have demanded the withdrawal of these amendments, emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional boundaries.