Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy’s latest criticism of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) draft guidelines, calling them an “attack on the Constitution,” strikes me as both illogical and unwarranted. His comments, however, have sparked a debate among intellectuals, prompting a closer analysis that reveals his claims lack both factual and constitutional basis.
The new draft guidelines introduced by the UGC propose biannual admissions, multiple entry and exit options, and flexible degree structures for undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) programs. These measures aim to modernize and enhance the quality of higher education in India. Framing such regulations is well within the UGC’s mandate, which includes coordinating university education, maintaining teaching and research standards, and ensuring quality control. Far from being unconstitutional, these guidelines align with the UGC’s statutory responsibilities under the University Grants Commission Act, of 1956.
The UGC’s roots trace back to 1945 when it was established to oversee Central Universities in Aligarh, Banaras, and Delhi. In 1949, the University Education Commission, chaired by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, recommended restructuring the UGC along the lines of the UK’s University Grants Committee. This led to its formal inauguration in 1953 by then-Education Minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. In 1956, the UGC became a statutory body, tasked with maintaining education standards nationwide. These historical facts underscore the Commission’s legitimacy and constitutional foundation.
Chief Minister Reddy’s assertion that the guidelines constitute a “big cultural attack and conspiracy” lacks substantive evidence. The UGC’s role is to promote excellence in higher education, not to usurp state powers or impose cultural agendas. The draft guidelines aim to reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks and improve academic outcomes, not infringe on constitutional principles or federal autonomy.
Reddy’s criticism also misinterprets the federal structure. Article 153 of the Constitution establishes the Governor’s role to ensure checks and balances between the state and central governments. Ironically, Congress governments, which Reddy represents, have historically misused Article 356 to dismiss state governments for political gain, undermining federal principles. For example, the dismissal of N.T. Rama Rao’s government in 1985 is a stark reminder of such misuse.
The criticism of the UGC guidelines also exposes deeper political contradictions. It was Congress-led governments that appointed successive Education Ministers who distorted history by downplaying the contributions of Hindu rulers while emphasizing Mughal narratives. Today, Reddy’s party criticizes efforts to reform the education system, despite having played a central role in shaping the very framework they now oppose.
Instead of making sweeping allegations, Reddy could have leveraged his position to provide constructive feedback on the draft guidelines. The proposed reforms are designed to curb brain drain and align Indian universities with global education standards. They focus on creating a more flexible and student-centric academic environment, vital for India’s progress in a knowledge-driven global economy.
Hence, I feel, Revanth Reddy’s opposition to the UGC’s draft guidelines appears more politically motivated rather than based on constitutional or educational concerns. In fact, the guidelines are a step toward improving India’s higher education system, and dismissing them as an “attack on the Constitution” is both unfounded and counterproductive. Only a constructive dialogue and not baseless opposition is essential for meaningful educational reform.
