New Education Authority

Will the proposed NCHER promote autonomy?

Bappaditya Chatterjee

The new draft of the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill, 2010 will not be ‘all-powerful’ and ‘centralised’. States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Gujarat opposed the old draft as it was ‘anti federal’. The earlier draft had attracted widespread criticism for over- centralisation and bureaucratisation of the education system. The central government appointed a taskforce that released a ‘federal’ version of the law addressing the concerns of the states. The bill was placed before the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE, the highest decision-making body for higher education in India under HRD Ministry) when it met on June 19. If the Bill is cleared, it would go for Cabinet approval and then would figure in parliament’s monsoon session.

Why NCHER?

The establishment of NCHER as the overarching regulator for higher education was recommended by the Yash Pal Committee. It would subsume all existing regulators such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), and the academic functions of the Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India and others.

Professor Suranjan Das, Vice Chancellor, University of Calcutta said, “The present systems of multiple regulators like UGC, AICTE and Bar Council, etc. in higher education was not efficiently working as there was lack of coordination among them. UGC and AICTE have different regulations for recruitment of teachers. So for a university like Calcutta University, it is difficult as there is no parity in regulations. States universities have grievances as 65% of UGC’s budget is being spent for around 40 central universities while the rest of the amount is being spent on more than 300 states universities.”

According to Yash Pal, noted academician, the overall responsibility of the NCHER is to increase the autonomy of higher education institutions, facilitate access, inclusion and opportunities for all and promote a culture of quality and excellence in higher education.

Why opposition by states?

“The proposed NCHER would over-centralise higher education. The states’ voice and demand have to be addressed”, said Professor Das. No universities can be set up without the “authorisation” of the NCHER and therefore, even state governments would have become supplicants before the commission if they wanted to establish a university. “The proposed NCHER Act disregarded the fact that higher education is in the Concurrent List of the Constitution and completely eliminated the role of the respective state governments. NCHER will have all powers of giving degrees and diplomas by legal implication and the universities and institutes would merely be its authorised agents delivering them. Since education is now in the Concurrent List, could this proposed “authorisation” by the NCHER, bypass constitutional amendments?” said, Professor Sutanu Bhattacharya, a former Joint Secretary of the UGC.

He felt that there was no provision kept for authorising or recognising the affiliated colleges in the earlier draft and hence under the Act, the NCHER could not authorise or recognise these to give them grants-in-aid. These colleges would lose their direct grantee status for Central assistance enjoyed under the UGC Act (Sections 2F and 12B).

What changes were made

A fresh version of the Bill is called Higher Education and Research Bill 2010. The word ‘national’ is missing. The new draft says that every university has to intimate the NCHER of its intention along with an assessment report by a registered accreditation agency. The NCHER cannot refuse “commencement of academic operations in a university” if it fulfills the stipulated norms and it has to either “declare” or “reject” the request within 120 days.

Another relaxation the taskforce has granted states pertains to functional authorisation, which any new university awarding independent degrees would need to obtain from the NCHER. Under the old draft, the NCHER could refuse authorisation even after the university received a positive assessment report from an accreditation agency.

The victory for states is the creation of an all-new General Council within the ambit of the NCHER. With representatives from every state/UT, this Council will have the power to veto the commission’s decisions by a two-thirds majority. “Constitution of a general council for giving wider representation to the states and educational and research institutions across different areas is a welcome addition to the old draft which was too centralised.” Professor Das said.

The old NCHER draft law made it mandatory for states to choose VCs from the national registry. Central Universities will make choices from the directory but for states, the provision is optional. There is also concern over a proposed Directory of Academics for Leadership Positions from which institutions can choose their VCs. The directory is to be prepared on the basis of names suggested by a collegium of scholars.

A major innovation in the draft is the setting up of a Higher Education Financial Services Corporation (HEFSC) as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The corporation is to disburse funds to universities on the basis of norms and principles set by the NCHER. Currently the regulator (UGC) is also the funds disburser. The concern is that this will bring a corporate culture to the financing of education in the new draft called “Research Foundation.”

The draft also seeks control of education as a whole including medical, legal and agricultural. The taskforce recommended a constitutional amendment to include agricultural education under the NCHER, agriculture being a state subject at present.

But the question is about adding more bodies. The commission will have 7 members. There is a collegium consisting of eminent scholars. Then there is an 11-member general council which includes, among others, representatives of each state higher education council, vice-chancellors of universities, and heads of professional bodies, among others. Many senior academicians fear that too many committees will affect the autonomy and freedom of education.