The case for a super regulatory body for higher education encompassing arts, science, commerce, professional, technical, agricultural and medical education at the Centre is not new. Several high-powered committees/commissions chaired by highly respected educationists have been consistently recommending aggregation of higher education/research institutions under a single super regulator. Among them:
The Kothari Commission (1966). The commission unambiguously recorded that the University Grants Commission (UGC, estb. 1956) should solely supervise and regulate higher education in toto. “…all higher education should be regarded as an integrated whole, that professional cannot be completely divorced from general education, and that it is essential to bring all higher education, including agriculture, engineering and medicine, within the purview of UGC. This is the ultimate direction that we should move.”
The National Policy on Education (1986). Together with its subsequent Plan of Action (1992), NPE recommended a National Apex Body for coordination and integration of higher education and research. “In the interest of greater coordination and consistency in policy, sharing of facilities and developing inter-disciplinary research, a national body covering higher education in general, agricultural, medical, technical, legal and other professional fields, will be set up,” promised NPE.
The National Knowledge Commission (2005). Chaired by the US-based former telecom czar Satyen (‘Sam’) Pitroda, NKC recommended a complete overhaul of the tertiary education regulatory regime. Stating that the higher education system in India is “over-regulated but under-governed”, the commission recommended establishment of an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE), working independently of the government and responsible for licensing new higher education institutions countrywide. It advised that the role of UGC should be restricted to disbursing public funds and that all professional education councils such as the Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India, etc “may set requirements to determine eligibility for conducting a profession. All other regulatory agencies such as the AICTE need to be abolished while the MCI and BCI will be limited to their role as professional associations. These professional associations could conduct nationwide examinations to provide licences for those wishing to enter the profession”.
The Yash Pal Committee (2009). The committee on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in its report submitted to the Union government in June 2009 recommended the creation of an all-encompassing National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), a constitutional body which would subsume regulatory organisations such as the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and DEC and take over all the duties and responsibilities of these higher education supervisory organisations including licensing and monitoring academic standards, disbursing grants and appointing vice chancellors.
“The responsibility for the establishment and monitoring of the performance of institutions has been exercised by many different statutory regulatory bodies as well as governments and universities, often leading to multiplicity of authorities and duplication of inspection and control. In this process, the need for stimulating innovations of curricula, experimenting with the approaches to teaching and learning, and establishing meaningful links with society have rarely been emphasized… The National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) would perform its regulatory function without interfering with academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It would not take recourse to inspection-based approval method. From the current inspection-approval method, it would move to a verification and authentication system... the Commission is to be seen as a catalytic agency which is interested in creating more and more space for the individuality of each university and protecting their autonomy,” recommended the committee’s report.