NEW DELHI: Discontent within academic and social spheres — including criticism expressed before the Supreme Court — has been steadily rising over issues linked to the Ministry of Education. In response, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently directed that responsibilities be clearly fixed and accountability ensured. His concern stems from mounting public criticism of the education system and the Ministry’s handling of controversies, particularly after the Supreme Court’s action in the NCERT textbook matter and the President’s direct instruction to the concerned agency.
A serious dimension of the debate is the attempt by some political actors to attribute systemic problems to the Prime Minister’s Office. However, policy formulation and major decisions are discussed at length at the highest levels, including matters such as the National Education Policy and expansion initiatives in higher education. Day-to-day administration — appointments, curricula, textbook approvals, and institutional management — remains the responsibility of the Education Minister and the Ministry.
STRUCTURAL CRISIS IN CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES
India’s higher education system forms the backbone of the country’s socio-economic progress. Central universities play a pivotal role in advancing teaching and research. Yet, as of February 2026, the system faces significant administrative and staffing challenges.
India has approximately 54 central universities, whose Vice-Chancellors are appointed by the President of India. During 2004-25, reports indicated that around 14 of 56 central universities lacked permanent Vice-Chancellors. As of February 2026, large-scale faculty vacancies persist:
- Of approximately 18,981 sanctioned teaching posts, between 4,889 and 5,182 remain vacant.
- Across 45-46 central universities, more than 5,000 to 6,000 faculty positions (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor) are reportedly unfilled.
- In January 2026, the Supreme Court directed that all vacancies of Vice-Chancellors and Registrars be filled within four months.
Although the government has filled over 17,000 faculty posts in central higher educational institutions such as IITs and IIMs under “mission mode” recruitment since 2022, retirements and expanding student enrollment continue to create gaps.
UGC EQUITY REGULATIONS 2026 CONTROVERSY
A major policy flashpoint emerged with the notification of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2026 on January 15, 2026. The regulations mandate the formation of “Equity Committees” and “Equity Squads” to prevent discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC students. While intended to strengthen safeguards against caste-based discrimination, the rules have faced opposition from certain student groups, who describe them as excessive or discriminatory.
Legal scrutiny and public debate continue over their scope, implementation mechanisms, and potential implications for institutional autonomy.
NCERT TEXTBOOK DISPUTE AND SUPREME COURT ACTION
A parallel controversy involves an NCERT Class VIII Social Science textbook titled “Exploring Society: India and Beyond.” The Supreme Court stayed the publication and distribution of a section discussing “corruption in the judiciary.” The Court rejected an unconditional apology from the NCERT Director and the Education Secretary and issued contempt notices. It ordered:
- Immediate suspension of distribution and sale
- Seizure of physical copies
- Prohibition on digital circulation
- Legal action against unauthorized sharing
The next hearing is scheduled for March 11.
During proceedings, the Chief Justice observed that allegations portraying the judiciary as corrupt could undermine institutional credibility. The Court also noted that in the digital era, thousands of copies could already have circulated, necessitating investigation into the publication process.
The Ministry’s Department of School Education and Literacy subsequently halted distribution pending further orders. The Education Minister reiterated respect for the judiciary as guardian of the Constitution and fundamental rights. However, the Court signaled that formal expressions of respect would not substitute for accountability in process failures.
TEXTBOOK DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS
NCERT textbooks are produced through a multi-layered process involving directors, advisory committees, subject experts, editors, and academic councils. Previous editions credited scholars such as Prof. Hari Vasudevan (Chair), Prof. Neeladri Bhattacharya, Prof. M. H. Qureshi, Prof. Sarada Balagopalan, and committee members including Anil Sethi, Anjali Khullar, Archana Prasad, Janaki Nair, Prabhu Mohapatra, Ramachandra Guha, Sanjay Sharma, Tanika Sarkar, Tapati Guha Thakurta, Smita Sahay Bhattacharya, Suraj Sharma, Indu Sharma, K. Jaya, and Aparajita De.
Authorship in such textbooks is collective rather than chapter-specific. It remains unclear whether the composition of committees changed in the latest edition or whether procedural lapses occurred during review and approval stages. The controversy has reignited debate over ideological bias in curriculum development, especially amid long-standing allegations of “saffronization” versus counter-claims of left-leaning academic dominance.
GOVERNANCE, OVERSIGHT, AND MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The broader criticism is administrative rather than ideological: that ministerial oversight has weakened, with greater emphasis placed on public events and digital outreach than on rigorous institutional supervision. When leadership positions remain vacant across dozens of institutions, systemic drift becomes inevitable.
The present controversy underscores the need for:
- Strong internal review mechanisms
- Transparent accountability structures
- Time-bound appointment processes
- Multi-stage scrutiny for sensitive academic content
- Clear separation between political messaging and academic governance
Education policy in a democracy must balance academic freedom with institutional responsibility. The current disputes reveal deficiencies in monitoring, coordination, and decision-making processes within the Ministry. Whether judicial intervention and executive scrutiny will result in structural reform remains to be seen. What is clear is that sustainable educational reform requires consistent administrative discipline, depoliticized institutional management, and robust quality-control systems across the entire academic architecture.
