Karnataka HEI Bill: Changes needed

The Karnataka State Public Higher Education Institutions (KSPHEI) Bill, based on the report by Dr V K Atre committee, is a commendable effort to align the state’s higher education ecosystem with NEP 2020 and emerging trends in knowledge generation, management and application. It will replace the existing KSU Act, 2000, after approval by the legislature.

Appreciable aspects of the Bill include: a) transformational changes in the organisational structure and composition of the authorities; b) designed in a national/global format; c) self-governance with minimal roles assigned to the government and the chancellor; d) newly created Board of Governors (BoG) entrusted with powers to appointment Vice Chancellor, Pro-VC (a new position), Registrars, Deans and other officers; e) Responsibility on BoG to guide the university towards excellence; f) degree awarding status to autonomous colleges; g) thematic schools; h) types of courses to be offered by HEIs are made part of the Act; and, i) globally prioritised areas for focused research.

Also Read: K’taka Higher Education Bill: A right step, but more needs to be done

Notwithstanding, there is ample scope to tweak certain provisions to realise the NEP’s vision of higher educational services.

Chairman, BoG: Section 18(2) of the Bill states “The Chairperson shall be a person of eminence with demonstrated administrative and leadership capabilities along with abilities to manage complex situations.” Given that NEP strongly promotes academicians as institutional leaders, only eminent academicians/educationists should occupy this post. Non-academicians/ administrators should be barred to demonstrate the importance given to academics.

Visionary VCs: Section 19 restates the same procedure for selection of a Vice Chancellor as in the KSU Act, 2000. Two decades of accumulated negatives have shown that this system has not worked well for the universities and for government. The new Act should alter the equation decisively in favour of meritorious academic leaders as VCs.

Accordingly, the screening committee should be empowered to empanel only visionaries with transparent backgrounds: a) non-academicians should not be members; b) If no applicant is found eligible, the screening committee should have powers to invite an outstanding academician from the national institutions or NRIs; c) VC should not be a ‘captive CEO’ under a ‘dominant BoG’ (appointing and disciplining authority); his/her removal should be on the basis of an enquiry conducted by no less than a retired High/Supreme Court justice; d) VC may be permitted to seek the opinion of the government before implementing a decision of the BoG, if in his/her opinion, the latter is in conflict with the provisions of the Act (as CEOs of Zilla Parishads do). Such checks and balances would rid the varsities of ‘unholy’ interference.

In the appointment of Pro-VC (Section 21), Registrar (Sections 23, 24), Deans of Schools (Section 22) and other officers, the BoG may adopt a performance-based assessment procedure to promote a second level of academic leadership as proposed by NEP. Over a period of time, this talent pool could be strategically deployed to enhance the quality of educational services in the state.

Also Read: Public investment needs political will

PMEB (Section 44): The Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Board is perhaps redundant in view of Section 31 (The Director of Research, Innovation and Consultancy Board) and Section 32 (The Director of Internal Quality and Assurance Cell), which collectively provide for the same functions as PMEB.

Teacher Education (Section 8): NEP’s proposal to implement the Justice Verma Commission report (2002) to weed out rogue B.Ed colleges which have become ‘degree-selling institutions’ is still relevant and given effect to.

Research and Innovation (Section 12b): In addition to the areas identified, it is fundamental to include other globally prioritised developmental themes such as sustainable development, biodiversity preservation and regeneration. China and Western HEIs have taken large strides in making sustainable development an integral part of their education system.

The government may establish ‘Cluster universities’ from among existing small universities with similar/related/overlapping themes to address their sustainability issues.

Assessment and Evaluation obligation: All teachers and staff of the university and its affiliated colleges must be deemed to be “officials of the university for Assessment and Evaluation purposes”. Refusal to undertake assigned examination duties should attract punitive action as determined by the BoG. Officials who seriously undermine the dignity of the university by indulging in serious examination offences may be dismissed from service to signal zero tolerance to offenders. Subsection (2) of Section 89 should be accordingly modified.

SC judgments: A provision to implement apex court decisions by a notification, notwithstanding anything said anywhere in the Act, should be included, in deference to the apex court.

Lastly, the menace of fake HEIs, as notified by the national regulators (UGC, AICTE, MCI, BCI, IARI, NCTE, etc.,) may be addressed by a specific provision.

(The writer is Adviser, Education Reforms, Govt of Karnataka)