University Governance in India: Principles and Challenges

How a university is governed determines everything – who gets a say in decisions, how funds are spent, whether faculty can teach freely, and whether students can trust the institution they’ve enrolled in. In India, university governance is built on a set of foundational principles: autonomy, internal democracy, and accountability. But putting these principles into practice has proved far more complicated than theory suggests. Political pressures, bureaucratic inertia, and exclusionary decision-making continue to test the integrity of university governance across the country. Understanding these tenets – and the challenges surrounding them – is essential for anyone invested in the future of Indian higher education.

What university governance actually means 🔗

Research published in the International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (2024) describes governance as the institutional framework that allows higher education institutions to improve their administrative structures and function with both autonomy and accountability. As academics studying NEP 2020 reforms note, the traditional role of the state as a regulator and controller is increasingly being redefined as that of a coordinator and collaborator with other stakeholders. Governance, in this sense, is not just about rules and structures – it is about who holds power, how decisions are made, and how institutions are kept honest.

In India, the University Grants Commission (UGC) – established as a statutory body by an Act of Parliament in 1956 – has historically been the primary regulatory authority coordinating standards across universities. Alongside AICTE and NAAC, it forms a web of oversight bodies that sit between the government and individual institutions. But regulation and governance are not the same thing. Governance goes deeper, touching the everyday functioning of academic and administrative life within a university.

Autonomy in universities: external and internal dimensions 🔗

Autonomy is frequently cited as the cornerstone of good university governance. Scholars at Springer have traced the concept back to its Greek roots – “autos” (self) and “nomos” (law or customary usage) – describing it as the practice of self-government that is both a right and a responsibility of higher education institutions. In practice, however, autonomy operates across two distinct dimensions: external and internal.

External autonomy 🔗

External autonomy refers to a university’s independence from government interference – its ability to set its own academic agenda, hire faculty on merit, design curricula, and manage finances without being dictated to by political or bureaucratic forces. A World Bank study on autonomy and accountability in tertiary education identifies a clear spectrum: at one end are state-controlled systems where institutions have very limited autonomy, and at the other are state-supervised systems where institutions enjoy substantially greater freedom. India has long leaned toward the controlled end of this spectrum.

Prior to NEP 2020, India’s higher education system exemplified the centralised model, with regulatory bodies like the UGC and AICTE imposing strict, top-down regulations that left institutions with minimal freedom to innovate or adapt to local needs. The Radhakrishnan Commission of 1948 had recommended that universities be self-governing organisations, free from government interference – a principle that has been repeatedly endorsed but inconsistently applied in the decades since.

Internal autonomy 🔗

Internal autonomy is equally important but often overlooked. It refers to the freedom of academic departments, faculty, and researchers to pursue knowledge without interference from their own university’s administration. As The Wire has reported, philosopher Judith Butler frames academic freedom as both a right and an obligation – one that gives faculty the freedom to pursue research without interference and the right to participate in governance. Internal autonomy, then, is not just about academic freedom for its own sake; it is structurally tied to how governance decisions are made within the institution.

Internal democracy and participative management 🔗

A university cannot be truly autonomous if its own internal governance is authoritarian. This is where the principle of internal democracy – or participative management – becomes critical. The idea is straightforward: faculty, staff, and students should have a meaningful voice in the decisions that shape their academic environment. In practice, this means faculty senates, academic councils, and other deliberative bodies should hold real decision-making authority, not just serve as rubber stamps for administrative orders.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), whose governance principles have informed higher education practice globally, assigns faculty “primary responsibility” for the curriculum and argues that new academic programs should be developed by faculty, since their judgment is central to general educational policy. This principle of shared governance – where authority is distributed between boards, administration, and faculty based on domain expertise – is accepted as a global best practice.

In the Indian context, research on governance in Indian higher education institutions notes that Faculty Senates and Managerial Councils have become important bodies for academic and managerial matters respectively. Yet in many universities, these bodies function with limited power. Governing bodies often meet only once or twice a year, decision-making remains concentrated at the top, and the voices of junior faculty, contract teachers, and students are frequently marginalised. As governance researchers point out, a single opinion cannot dominate – there must be genuine opportunities for shared decision-making. The NEP 2020 has acknowledged poor governance as a structural problem and proposed more decentralised approaches, though implementation remains uneven.

Accountability and public audit: transparency in practice 🔗

Autonomy without accountability is a recipe for misuse. This is why the third foundational tenet of university governance – public accountability – is inseparable from the other two. Universities, particularly public ones, are funded by taxpayers and serve a public purpose. They must, therefore, be answerable to the public, not just to internal stakeholders or regulatory bodies.

In India, accountability in higher education operates through multiple mechanisms. Academic audit – both internal and external – is one such mechanism, with the NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) operating under the UGC to conduct accreditation of higher education institutions. Since 2015, accreditation has been made mandatory, replacing what was earlier a voluntary process.

Financial accountability has received sharper focus in recent years. In June 2024, the UGC issued detailed guidelines on Public Self-Disclosure, requiring all higher education institutions to publicly display key data – including annual accounts, audit reports, accreditation status, faculty details, and institutional development plans – on their websites without any login barriers. This move was aligned with NEP 2020’s emphasis on transparent self-disclosure as a fundamental governance principle. As the UGC stated, the availability of such information in the public domain is a significant source of accountability for institutions.

However, compliance has been far from universal. By September 2025, the UGC had issued notices to 54 private universities for failing to follow these transparency rules, despite repeated reminders. The regulator warned that such lapses weaken public trust and raise doubts about governance standards. This gap between policy and compliance illustrates a deeper problem: accountability mechanisms exist on paper, but their enforcement remains weak.

The Supreme Court of India has also stepped in on this front. In 2025, the Supreme Court ordered a nationwide audit of all private, non-government, and deemed universities, directing the Central Government, State Governments, and the UGC to disclose detailed information about the founding, regulation, and financial management of these institutions. The Court placed direct accountability on the UGC, requiring its Chairman to personally sign the compliance affidavit – setting a rare precedent for direct regulatory responsibility.

Challenges in university governance: where the principles break down 🔗

Despite a clear normative framework built around autonomy, democracy, and accountability, Indian university governance faces serious, systemic challenges. Two of the most pressing are political interference and the exclusion of faculty and other stakeholders from meaningful decision-making.

Political interference and the erosion of autonomy 🔗

The relationship between political power and university administration in India has grown increasingly fraught. As analysts have documented, there has been a troubling pattern of replacing university Vice-Chancellors with politically pliable appointees, often without adherence to merit-based selection processes. Media reports and academic insiders suggest that search committees are being bypassed and political loyalty is being prioritised over academic qualifications in top appointments.

The consequences are significant. As of recent reports, ten central universities – including Banaras Hindu University – were functioning without permanent Vice-Chancellors, and IGNOU, the world’s largest open university, had been without a permanent VC since July 2024. Acting leaders in such roles often lack the authority to launch new programmes or sign international partnerships, leaving institutions paralysed. A parliamentary panel found that more than 56% of professor-level posts across IITs, IIMs, NITs, and central universities remain vacant, with a Right to Information response confirming a 27% overall faculty vacancy rate across central universities.

Political interference also distorts financial governance: political leaders may pressure institutions to allocate funds to specific projects, while procurement processes in many universities are undermined by favoritism, resulting in inflated costs and poor outcomes. When political interests override academic ones, the institution’s core mission – to foster knowledge, critical thinking, and research – is compromised.

The Wire has reported on a broader pattern in which academic freedom is being undermined through a nexus between university leadership and political power. Departments in the humanities and social sciences are facing pressure to conform to officially sanctioned narratives, while funding bodies like the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) have been reported to increasingly prioritise projects aligned with government initiatives over independent critical research.

Lack of participatory decision-making 🔗

Beyond political interference, Indian universities also struggle with a structural deficit in participatory governance. Decision-making in many institutions remains top-heavy and hierarchical. Faculty members – particularly those in junior or contractual positions – often have no effective channel to influence institutional policy. Students are rarely included in meaningful governance conversations. Governance researchers emphasise that universities must develop clear organisational strategies that define roles, responsibilities, and accountability at every level – and that the industry, government, and faculty must together share responsibility for improving the educational environment.

The NEP 2020, as scholars analysing its governance implications note, has proposed more decentralised governance – but meaningful decentralisation requires more than policy language. It requires deliberate institutional design: bodies that actually meet, deliberate, and decide; faculty who are empowered and protected; and students who are treated as stakeholders rather than as passive beneficiaries.

The way forward: balancing autonomy with accountability 🔗

Good university governance is not about choosing between autonomy and accountability – it requires both, simultaneously. Research on NEP 2020 governance models concludes that the success of any reform hinges on effective implementation strategies, stakeholder collaboration, and ongoing evaluation. Strengthening institutional capacity – through training academic leaders, building transparent financial systems, and genuinely empowering faculty governance bodies – is fundamental.

The principles are clear: universities must be independent enough to pursue knowledge freely, democratic enough to include all legitimate voices in their governance, and accountable enough to justify the public trust and public funds they operate on. What remains to be resolved is the political will – and the institutional courage – to put those principles into consistent practice.

What do you think? If faculty participation is accepted as essential to good university governance, why do so many Indian institutions still operate with top-down decision-making structures? And can transparency mandates like the UGC’s public self-disclosure guidelines genuinely improve accountability, or do deeper structural reforms need to come first?

References

1. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/3/23451.pdf
2. https://www.academia.edu/164911306/Reforming_University_Governance_A_Perspective_from_National_Education_Policy_2020
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Grants_Commission_(India)
4. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-95-4401-1_3
5. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/267671468158063464/pdf/526540WP0Auton145574B01PUBLIC110pdf.pdf
6. https://m.thewire.in/article/education/universities-as-sites-of-dissent-academic-freedom-and-the-rise-of-cancel-culture-in-india
7. https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-political-interference-higher-education
8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334964259_Governance_Related_Issues_and_reforms_in_Higher_Education_Institutions_with_Special_Reference_to_Private_Universities_Higher_Education_system_in_India
9. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565786.pdf
10. https://www.shiksha.com/news/humanities-social-sciences-ugc-mandates-transparency-new-guidelines-for-higher-education-institutions-public-self-disclosure-blogId-168457
11. https://educationpost.in/news/education/ugc-issues-guidelines-for-public-self-disclosure-by-heis
12. https://educationpost.in/news/education/ugc-issues-notice-to-54-private-universities-for-violating-disclosure-rules
13. https://zeenews.india.com/india/sc-audit-private-universities-governance-finance-ugc-2989529.html
14. https://universalinstitutions.com/the-hyperpoliticisation-of-indian-higher-education/
15. https://www.deshabhimani.com/deshabhimani-english-/national-76192/indian-higher-education-crisis-political-interference-57023
16. https://www.abhijeetshirke.in/corruption-and-mismanagement-in-indian-universities/