Reform or Crisis in the UGC: The Tenure of Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar

New Delhi. The discontent, political confrontation, and academic unease surrounding the University Grants Commission (UGC) that are visible across the country today are not the product of a single day or a single draft regulation. Their roots lie in an entire phase during which attempts were made to reshape higher education into a new mould in the name of “rapid reforms.” The most significant face of this phase was former UGC Chairman Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, whose tenure lasted from 4 February 2022 to 7 April 2025. It was during his tenure as UGC Chairman that this divisive bill was prepared. The central government honoured Jagadesh Kumar with the Padma Vibhushan award. As a result, it cannot be denied that the decisions taken by Jagadesh Kumar carried the consent of senior leaders sitting in government.

This was the very period when the responsibility of translating the National Education Policy-2020 (NEP-2020) into practice rested on the shoulders of the UGC. The government wanted structural changes in the higher education system to become visible rapidly. Prof. Jagadesh Kumar has been a distinguished academic—first a professor at IIT Delhi, then Vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, and thereafter Chairman of the UGC. However, his administrative style was rigid and controversial from the beginning, and its shadow eventually fell across the entire UGC apparatus.

After becoming UGC Chairman, Prof. Jagadesh Kumar positioned himself as the principal implementer of NEP-2020. During his tenure, measures such as the Academic Bank of Credits, the Multiple Entry-Exit system, dual degrees, multidisciplinary courses, and the legal recognition of online-hybrid degrees were pushed forward at great speed. The government and the UGC described these reforms as a major shift toward a student-centric, flexible, and globally aligned education system. In the same sequence, CUET—the Common University Entrance Test—was expanded beyond central universities to include state, deemed, and private universities. Prof. Jagadesh Kumar argued that CUET would eliminate disparities arising from board examinations and ensure equal opportunities for students across the country. But this is precisely where the first major fault line of discontent emerged. Many vice-chancellors and academics stated publicly that CUET had stripped universities of their autonomy in admissions and had confined education within a centralized, examination-driven framework. Technical glitches, cancelled examinations, and delays further deepened this resentment. In states such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Punjab, and Delhi, the sentiment strengthened that higher education was being detached from local social and academic contexts.

The most sensitive and explosive aspect of Prof. Jagadesh Kumar’s tenure concerned the proposed changes in rules related to the selection of professors, associate professors, and university leadership. In the UGC draft regulations, it was suggested that along with pure academic experience and research, industry or corporate experience could also be recognized for professor appointments. Greater “flexibility” for selection committees was proposed. The UGC argued that this would reduce the industry-academia gap and connect universities with practical knowledge. However, teachers’ organizations across the country, several senior professors, and former vice-chancellors described this as dangerous for academic values. They argued that it would reduce opportunities for teachers who had spent years in research and teaching, increase the risk of bias in appointments, and gradually push universities toward privatization. Moreover, allegations were raised that in vice-chancellor appointments as well, the role of states was being curtailed and the entire process was becoming excessively centralized.

What turned this discontent into a nationwide flashpoint were the draft regulations and the so-called new UGC framework prepared by the UGC, which surfaced during the final phase of Prof. Jagadesh Kumar’s tenure. Academics and opposition parties alleged that these regulations were advanced without extensive parliamentary debate and without formal consent from states and universities. Several former vice-chancellors went so far as to say that the UGC was becoming less an academic regulatory body and more an administrative extension of the Ministry of Education. Prof. Jagadesh Kumar rejected these allegations, asserting that the changes were necessary for the future education system. However, the lack of dialogue and the rapid pace of decision-making sharpened the opposition instead of calming it.

In a fair assessment, it is acknowledged that Prof. Jagadesh Kumar demonstrated the courage to implement reforms that had long remained confined to policy papers. His efforts to operationalize NEP-2020, enhance student mobility, and introduce flexibility in curricula cannot be denied. Yet, it is equally true that his strategy to carry states, teachers, and universities along was weak. Despite the reformist intent, his working style often appeared directive and confrontation-oriented. This is why his tenure came to be defined more by controversies than by achievements.

After Prof. Jagadesh Kumar’s retirement in April 2025, Vineet Joshi was appointed as the acting Chairman of the UGC. This raised hopes that perhaps the tone of policy and administrative approach would soften. But the reality so far is that while the face has changed, the direction has not. The structure of CUET remains unchanged. Discontent over the draft regulations continues. The doubts and apprehensions of state governments and the academic community have not been resolved. In other words, the controversy that began during Prof. Jagadesh Kumar’s tenure has not ended even after the change in the chairmanship.

Today, the crisis at the heart of the UGC is not the failure of a single individual. Rather, it is the outcome of an entire process in which reforms were pushed forward without adequate dialogue and consensus. Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar’s tenure will be remembered in the history of Indian higher education as a phase when the pace of change was rapid, but the number of companions willing to walk alongside steadily diminished. And the question that continues to echo even today is this—was centralization in the name of reform the only possible path for higher education, or could this transformation also have been achieved through consensus and trust?