REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION OF INDIA

(DRAFT OF HECI ACT 2018)

INDEX

(i) Significance of Higher Education Commission of India (Page 2)

(Draft of HECI Act 2018)

(ii) How different is the proposed HECI from the present UGC? (Page 3-4)
(HECI VS UGC)

(iii) Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions (Page 5)

(iv) Challenges For Governance & Conclusion (Page 6)

1
(i) SIGNIFICANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION OF INDIA

The Centre has decided to establish a Higher Education Commission of India

(HECI) in the place of the University Grants Commission (UGC). A draft
Higher Education Commission of India (Repeal of University Grants
Commission Act) Bill, 2018, is being circulated among stakeholders to invite
suggestions.

Touted as a key reform in higher education sector, the Bill if passed by the
Parliament, will separate the academic and funding aspects of the sector.

HECI will be the new, apex regulator for university and higher education in
India. It has to set benchmarks for academic performance, ensure that
institutions adhere to these and act against those that violate standards. It will
replace UGC once Parliament repeals UGC Act, 1951. The Human Resource
Development (HRD) ministry will pilot the Higher Education Commission of
India (Repeal of University Grants Commission Act) Act 2018, in the
monsoon session of the Parliament. HECI will be governed by a commission
headed by a chairperson and vice-chairperson selected by a committee which
will include the Cabinet Secretary and Higher Education Secretary (HRD).
Twelve other members, including officials from various stakeholder ministries,
two serving V-Cs, an industry doyen and two professors will be part of the
panel.

HECI will be a new avatar of UGC with a different vision, focus and powers.
While UGC has been vested with grant-giving powers, HECI will have no
funds to dole out. This is a decision based on the recommendations of many
government committees which pointed out how the fund-giving functions of
the UGC allowed for over-regulation –– an oft compromised UGC inspection
regime that has led to an inevitable quality decline in India’s higher education.
2
(ii) HOW DIFFERENT IS THE PROPOSED HECI FROM THE PRESENT
UGC?
(UGC VS HECI)

Here are the key differences between the proposed Higher Education
Commission of India from the present University Grants Commission:

Financial powers
UGC: It disburses grants to Central institutions out of its funds
HECI: It will not have any financial powers. The funding will be taken care by
Union HRD Ministry.

Academic powers
UGC: It is mandated to promote and coordinate university education and
determine and maintain standards of teaching, examination and research.
HECI: It will specify standards for grant of authorisation to a university of
higher educational institution to commence its academic opeartions.

Inspection
UGC: To assess financial needs or standards of teaching in an institution,
UGC conducts periodic inspections
HECI: No inspections. The body will prescribe norms on academic
performance by higher educational institutions.

Action on bogus institutions

3
UGC: Affiliations of colleges to universities can be terminated for
contravention of its regulations. It can withhold grants to universities for
violations of its regulations. It occasionally publishes lists of bogus
institutions.
HECI: It will be empowered to penalise or even shut down sub-standard
institutions without affecting students' interests. If the management of the
institution does not comply with the penalties, they can land in jail for up to
three years.

Composition
UGC: Has a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and 10 members appointed by the
Central government, some ex-officia members and some from academia,
industry. The Chairman's retirement age is 65 and has a term of 5 years, with
an extension of additional 5 years.
HECI: It shall comprise a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and 12 members
to be appointed by the Centre, including educationists and a member of the
industry. The Chairperson's retirement age is 70, will hold office for five
years.

Disputes
UGC: In case of any dispute between the Centre and the UGC on policy, the
Centre prevails.
HECI: The Centre prevails in case of any dispute between the Centre and the
HECI on policy.

Regular staff
The UGC appoints its own staff. The same will apply to the HECI as well. The
present staff of UGC will be re-trained to work on fully digital mode —
without physical files — at HECI.

4
 (iii) AUTONOMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Clause 15(2) of the act says that the commission shall take measures

to promote the autonomy of higher educational institutions for the free pursuit of
knowledge, innovation, incubation and entrepreneurship, and for facilitating access,
inclusion and opportunities to all, and providing for comprehensive and holistic
growth of higher education and research in a competitive global environment.

If we look at the provisions of the act, autonomy in real terms is seriously

compromised. First, the provision of “graded autonomy” made under Clause 15(4)
(d) may amount to autonomy to a select group of universities, colleges, or
institutions. The autonomy to mobilise resources for starting a new programme
would amount to privatisation of public-funded institutions and hence would lead to
serving the market. Second, with the curricula based on learning outcomes and
monitoring effectiveness of programme based on learning outcomes, the autonomy
of a teacher is severely restricted to serve employability rather than a free pursuit of
knowledge. Third, institutions engaged in the pursuit of knowledge by the very
nature of knowledge generation process are autonomous, where the performance of
individual scholars is evaluated by other scholars who have the ability and
competence to do so. Outside evaluators such as the HECI cannot be allowed to
define the parameters of outcome-based education to monitor teachers and impose
accountability in the guise of autonomy. This was the argument given by Immanuel
Kant (1979) in late 18th century Germany to defend the autonomy of scholars
against the state.

The performance of an institution is based on the scholarly work of individual

scholars. If any external performance criteria are applied for monitoring, then it
amounts to coercive use of power to fix accountability rather than autonomy for
knowledge generation. Lastly, unless the government commits to public funding
and addresses the shortage of teachers, teachers will be overburdened and will
hardly have the free time to devote for the research. Under a resource-constrained
situation, if institutions are forced to generate resources from the private sector,
then their autonomy is restricted to serving only the source from which the fund is
received.

5
 (iv) CHALLENGES FOR GOVERNANCE & CONCLUSION

Clause 15(4)(m) states that universities shall be enabled to become self-regulatory

bodies for the maintenance of academic quality. Clause 15(4)(j) states that the
HECI shall recommend appropriate faculty-centric governance structure for higher
educational institutions, which provides for transparency and efficiency in the
decision-making process. The act also notes that the HECI shall formulate a code of
good practices for promoting research; devolution of powers within the institutions
for better decision-making; and encourage institutions to adopt the same.
Self-regulation, faculty-centric governance and better decision-making are much
desired, but the reality is just the opposite and how far the HECI will succeed to
create that ideal situation, by keeping universities free from outside interferences,
shall remain a challenge. The HECI is also supposed to specify norms and
processes for fixing of fees to make higher education affordable. This is no doubt
necessary. However, if public-funded institutions are short of public funding and
will have to rely on loans and on self-financing courses to manage academic affairs,
then there will inevitably be a tendency to increase the fees and higher education
will consequently become less affordable.

The HECI Act, 2018, no doubt, shows its intention to develop universities as self-
regulatory bodies having faculty-led governance and efficient decision-making
systems. However, given that political and bureaucratic control coerces universities
time and again, this is difficult to achieve. The HECI Act intends to achieve
outcome-based education and thereby changes the discourse on quality without
looking at the structural problems of higher education. There is much talk about
autonomy, yet in practice accountability is imposed largely in terms of monitoring
outcomes. The agency of teachers will be lost if they are asked to serve market.
Autonomy will be restricted to suit market needs. There is a possibility that private
colleges and institutions will mushroom and degree and diploma mills will be on
the rise. On the other hand, many institutions of higher education, serving the rural
hinterland might face a threat of closure if they are unable to get the authority to
confer degrees or diplomas.
Higher education institutions run on the collective understanding of all
stakeholders, mainly teachers and students. It is possible to have diverse opinions
on how to teach in order to maximise the benefits to learners. It should be left to the
teachers to understand local context and adopt appropriate ways to teach. Any
attempt to have centralised control and to standardise learning outcomes may not
work in practice.
6