UGC Draft Regulation on Vice Chancellors UPSC NOTE

  UGC Draft Regulation and State Protests The UGC's draft regulation seeks to amend the 2010 rules, broadening the selection pool for vi...

 UGC Draft Regulation and State Protests

• The UGC's draft regulation seeks to amend the 2010 rules, broadening the selection pool for vice chancellors to include professionals with experience in industry, public administration, or public policy, not just academia.

• Several non-BJP state governments have protested, claiming the regulation infringes on the constitutional principle of federalism and demands its withdrawal.

• The protests highlight concerns that the regulation centralizes power and undermines state control over university appointments.

Legal and Constitutional Issues

• The UGC's draft regulation could be legally problematic, as the UGC Act of 1956 does not grant the UGC the authority to regulate the selection and appointment of vice chancellors.

• The Bombay High Court (2011) ruled that UGC regulations cannot override state laws, as state legislatures decide the qualifications and selection processes for vice chancellors.

• The Supreme Court (2015) overruled this, asserting that UGC regulations are binding on universities, even those under state legislation, suggesting the central law prevails.

UGC’s Role and Limitations

• The UGC's core mandate, as per the UGC Act, is to maintain educational standards, determine the qualifications for teaching staff, and coordinate university education.

• The UGC’s focus is on academic standards, not on administrative roles, which are traditionally handled by individual state universities under state laws.

• There is a growing concern that the UGC is extending its regulatory power beyond its legal mandate, leading to a conflict between central and state authority.

Key Ruling and Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kalyani Mathivanan case (2015) clarified that UGC regulations are binding, but they must be treated as recommendatory for state universities, particularly in the case of vice chancellor appointments.

• This ruling provides a potential resolution to the current dispute, suggesting that while the UGC regulations carry weight, they do not override state-specific laws on vice chancellor selection.