In the winter session of Parliament, beginning December 1, 2025, the Union Government plans to introduce the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill, 2025, as a flagship reform to create a single overarching higher education regulator, replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the sectoral councils, excluding medical and legal education. The HECI is expected to be a robust framework, designed to ensure quality, accountability, and institutional autonomy in higher education and translate the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020’s vision into clear norms on curriculum reforms, better academic delivery, and promote research culture. Recently, the University Grants Commission (UGC) released a draft policy on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment & Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2025. This draft has elicited significant reactions and responses on the state of higher education in India and its future trajectory. While the intention to modernize academic standards is always laudable, several provisions raise serious concerns about their potential to undermine the quality of Indian academia. Key issues such as lenient publication metrics, lack of reverse mobility, and the marginalization of the humanities demand urgent attention.
DILUTION OF ACADEMIC RIGOUR
A glaring issue in the draft policy is its relaxed approach to publication benchmarks for faculty promotions under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). For example, the individuals seeking a progression from associate professor to professor now no longer require peer-reviewed journal articles, a huge leap from 2018 guidelines that mandated 10 peer-reviewed journal articles. While the earlier framework demanded high-quality research in impactful journals, the draft risks legitimizing superficial achievements by lowering the bar. Such leniency is a disservice to academia, allowing opportunities for predatory journals to thrive. The global proliferation of low-quality journals poses a serious threat to academic standards. Frequently, faculty members resort to such outlets due to systemic pressures. Instead of lowering standards, efforts must focus on capacity-building and encouraging excellence. Diluting academic rigour risks erasing decades of progress in scholarship, where scholars laboured to produce impactful research. The credibility of Indian academia is too precious to compromise. Moreover, the draft narrowly overlooks significant contributions such as interdisciplinary projects, public intellectual work, and community-based research, failing to capture the diversity of academic excellence. By contrast, the 2018 guidelines emphasized not only greater output but also evidence of substantive impact. While those guidelines were not without flaws and required refinement, the current draft risks prioritizing quantity over quality, undermining innovation and intellectual growth.
LACK OF REVERSE MOBILITY
The draft further reveals a rigidity that treats academic careers as a one-way street. Unlike corporate professionals or administrators, who can pivot across roles, academics remain confined to rigid hierarchies. The policy allows corporate leaders to assume academic leadership roles as “professors of practice” but offers no reciprocal pathways for scholars to transition into roles such as policymakers or industry leaders. This asymmetry undervalues academic expertise and stifles innovation. The question to ponder now is whether academicians can become visiting ambassadors, CEOs, or directors in institutions like IITs and IIMs. The policy’s vision of flexibility appears superficial. Stringent qualifications without opportunities for academics to diversify their contributions highlight a top-down approach that hampers the dynamism essential for higher education. The neglect of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), which emphasises holistic education and knowledge creation beyond technical skills, is another example of this rigid framework. Furthermore, the assumption that successful corporate leaders can seamlessly translate their expertise into academic settings is fraught with risk. These domains require vastly different skill sets. There is little evidence that appointing industry professionals as academic leaders will automatically lead to visionary outcomes. While sparing elite institutions, the selective experimentation with non-IIT/IIM institutions exacerbates inequities and creates avoidable chaos, leaving many universities grappling with impractical reforms.
MARGINALIZATION OF HUMANITIES
The draft’s narrow focus on STEM disciplines marginalizes the humanities, social sciences, and languages. These fields are vital for fostering critical thinking, shaping societal narratives, and building cultural understanding—essential components of India’s vision of a “Viksit Bharat”. Token references to IKS fail to meaningfully integrate its ethos, reinforcing a fragmented view of knowledge that prioritizes technical expertise over holistic education. The sidelining of humanities becomes even more concerning when compared to the privileged autonomy enjoyed by elite institutions like IITs and IIMs. These institutions, safeguarded from sporadic reforms, have thrived by developing specialized strengths, as reflected in their global rankings. In contrast, other universities’ humanities and social sciences disciplines face neglect, often treated as peripheral to educational priorities. This undermines India’s intellectual diversity and diminishes its narrative power on the global stage. While STEM fields are undeniably important, especially emerging areas like artificial intelligence and machine learning, this progress must not come at the expense of humanities. These disciplines address societal challenges, foster ethical inquiry, and contextualize technological advancements within broader socio-cultural frameworks. Relegating them to the margins weakens Indian academia’s capacity for innovation and global thought leadership.
TOWARDS A BALANCED ACADEMIC ECOSYSTEM
First, the UGC must adopt a more nuanced policy approach to address these shortcomings. Developing a balanced framework that values teaching, interdisciplinary work, and community engagement alongside research is essential without compromising publication standards in reputable journals indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science. Second, the reverse mobility must also be incorporated, enabling academics to transition into roles like policymakers or industry advisors. Such pathways would validate academic expertise and enhance the socio-economic relevance of higher education. Encouraging faculty to engage with broader societal and industrial spheres aligns with global best practices, where academic leaders often contribute to public policy and innovation. Third, the administrative lapses must be addressed with urgency. The commission’s failure to defend its own regulations in legal disputes, as seen with the 2018 guidelines, erodes confidence in its governance. A stronger legal and administrative framework is needed to uphold institutional autonomy and ensure policy coherence. As proposed in the draft, unrealistic timelines for statutory amendments only burden already resource-strapped HEIs. Finally, the draft must reaffirm the value of humanities and social sciences by integrating their contributions into the academic framework. These disciplines are indispensable for fostering a vibrant intellectual ecosystem that aligns with India’s civilizational ethos. Prioritizing them would bolster India’s narrative power globally and underscore the role of holistic education in nation-building. While ambitious, the UGC’s draft policy risks undermining academic quality through lenient metrics, lack of flexibility, and neglect of humanities. By promoting inclusivity, intellectual rigour, and administrative coherence, the policy can better serve India’s higher education system and its aspirations for a “Viksit Bharat”. A balanced approach that values quality over quantity and interdisciplinary contributions will pave the way for a more equitable and robust academic ecosystem. The time for course correction is now.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.
