The Congress on Tuesday demanded answers from Prime Minister Narendra Modi after an RTI reply revealed that the PMO overruled the HRD Ministry's reservations in framing guidelines in grant of 'Institutions of Eminence' tag to six institutions including Reliance's "non-existent" Jio institute.
The Congress asked Modi to make public the "reasons and pressures" behind his "unprecedented intervention" to ease norms pertaining to land, finances and academic expertise of the institutes seeking the 'IoE' tag.
An RTI query by 'The Indian Express' has revealed that there was a strong difference of opinion within the government over autonomy, finances, student-teacher ratio, flexibility of course structure, accountability and regulatory powers for such institutions.
While the HRD Ministry and Finance Ministry wanted stringent norms on accountability, penalties, financial commitment, land availability and expertise, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) wanted lenient norms and intervened accordingly.
"We have become a laughing stock in the world of academics by granting the tag of institute of Eminence to a virtual university. This is also a carry over of cronyism that has started creeping into every facet of this government," Congress spokesperson Tom Vadakkan said.
He said the decision has raised more questions on the prime minister's office.
"The academic world and people of the country are asking questions -- what are the compulsions that have led to this decision of diluting the norms. The kind of pressure that is being exerted on the ministry and the minister to take a decision which is unprecedented in the history of India," Vadakkan said.
"These tough questions need to be answered and put in public domain by the PM himself," he said.
In July, the HRD Ministry announced granting of 'Institution of Eminence' tag to six institutions including Reliance Foundation's Jio Institute which is yet to be established. The decision to grant the status to Jio drew sharp criticism from various quarters.
According to the initial draft by the HRD Ministry, members of the sponsoring organisation of a greenfield private institution were required to have experience, either as sponsors or heads — vice-chancellors or directors — in setting up a higher education institution.
However, the PMO replaced this with a clause requiring some members of the organisation to have credentials that demonstrate "commitment" to education.
Similarly, the HRD Ministry wanted private institutions seeking IoE status to possess adequate land at the time of application but the PMO felt only an in-principle commitment to make land available would be sufficient.
The Ministry had proposed that greenfield category (new institutions) under which Jio Institute was selected should have a corpus of Rs 1000 crore. However, the PMO said it should be reduced to Rs 100 crore but the final regulations mentioned Rs 60 crore as the ceiling.
The PMO also objected to the HRD Ministry's proposal on having 10:1 students-teacher ratio in three years after granting of IoE tag. However, the PMO extended it to five years.
Similarly, the HRD Ministry wanted private IoEs to have flexibility of course structure regarding the number of years needed for a degree but with the minimum number of credit hours, as prescribed by regulatory authorities. However, the PMO removed the minimum credit hours norm.
Facing criticism over the selection of the yet-to-be-established Jio Institute an "Institution of Eminence", the HRD Ministry had earlier clarified that the tag was conditional and it would get only a letter of intent for now.
"Right now they will not get the IoE tag, they will just get a letter of intent. If they are able to establish themselves in three years and meet the expectations of the expert committee, then they will get the IoE status," HRD Secretary R Subramaniam had said.
"The expert panel will have the authority to withdraw the tag if the institution is not found to be performing up to the mark," he said.