Reservation in Private Universities, NTA Annual Reports, CUET Review Among Parliament panel's Recommendations

Updated on Mar 29, 2025 11:22

The Digvijaya Singh-led parliamentary panel flags declining higher education funding growth and urges increased central support for state universities to implement NEP 2020 reforms.

Kolkata: A parliamentary committee has suggested that the government introduce laws to extend reservation policies for historically marginalized communities, including SCs, STs, and OBCs, to private universities. In a report released on Wednesday, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth, and Sports proposed reforms in higher education policies and funding for various programs. The recommendations aim to ensure greater inclusivity and equal opportunities in private institutions.

The committee, headed by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh, made this recommendation after examining data from the All-India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) and conducting a fact-finding visit to Bengaluru. The findings highlighted the need for more inclusive policies in private universities.

The report highlights that data from private universities in Bengaluru and AISHE surveys reveal a significant lack of representation for SC/ST and OBC students in private higher education institutions. The committee strongly asserts that ensuring equal opportunities for all social groups is a core responsibility of every university - whether private or public - and aligns with India's constitutional principles of justice and equality.

The parliamentary panel has criticized the National Testing Agency (NTA) for failing to submit its annual reports to Parliament or the committee, even after being specifically asked to do so. Additionally, the committee has decided to examine the Common University Entrance Test (CUET), which became mandatory for central university admissions in 2022. The panel has called for a thorough review of both the exam's question paper quality and its overall design to ensure fairness and effectiveness.

Education budget, NEP, PM USHA: The report focuses heavily on higher education funding concerns. A parliamentary committee has observed that the share of higher education in the Union Budget has been growing at a declining rate in recent years. To address this, the panel has recommended increasing central funding by 8-10% annually to keep pace with inflation and maintain quality standards.

The report reveals concerning trends in higher education funding. The annual budget increase for higher education has sharply declined from about 8% in 2023-24 to just 5.16% in 2024-25. Additionally, the panel found that by December 2024, only Rs 33,239 crore of the Rs 46,482 crore revised budget allocation had been utilized. The committee highlights that this spending pattern violates the finance ministry's mandate limiting last-quarter expenditure to 33% of the total budget, indicating significant delays in fund utilization.

The report highlights inadequate funding for key higher education schemes, particularly the Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (PM-USHA), which aims to strengthen state-level institutions. The panel expressed concern that current allocations fall far short of what's needed to meet the ambitious infrastructure and staffing requirements outlined in the National Education Policy 2020.

The report emphasizes that implementing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 requires significant investments across multiple areas - including dual degree programs, biannual admissions, four-year undergraduate courses, and establishing multidisciplinary universities. It notes that while these reforms are mandated by the central government, the financial burden falls largely on state governments that operate most universities and higher education institutions.

To address this imbalance, the committee specifically recommends substantially increasing PM-USHA's budget allocation in coming years to help states meet these NEP implementation costs. The suggestion aims to align funding with the policy's ambitious transformation goals for India's higher education system.

The committee has raised serious concerns about three critical funding issues in higher education:

Inadequate Education Loans: Public sector banks are disbursing far fewer education loans than required, limiting students' access to higher education.

Underfunded Infrastructure: The Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) is failing to provide sufficient funds for infrastructure development in central institutions.

Poor Grant Utilization: Various programs like SPARC (Scheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration) are seeing ineffective use of allocated funds

The parliamentary committee observed a significant funding gap in higher education allocations. While the education ministry had requested Rs. 56,993.56 crore for 2025-26, the finance ministry approved only Rs. 50,077.95 crore - leaving a 12% shortfall in the required budget. This substantial difference between projected needs and actual allocation could hamper crucial education initiatives.

NTA and CUET Exam: The committee welcomed the introduction of CUET (Common University Entrance Test) for admissions to central universities but raised concerns about its exam format. Some members strongly disagreed with using CUET as the standard admission test for all undergraduate courses, especially for humanities and social sciences subjects. They argued that multiple-choice questions (MCQs) don't properly assess students' abilities in these fields, which require original, critical thinking rather than just selecting correct answers.

The committee also warned that the standardized CUET exam could prevent universities from selecting students who best fit their unique programs and academic priorities.

The committee pointed to JNU as an example, explaining: "JNU's own admission tests were carefully designed to maintain the university's required mix of students from different social, economic and regional backgrounds - a key requirement under JNU's founding law. While CUET has some advantages as a common entrance exam, it doesn't let specialized universities like JNU follow their unique admission rules to achieve their specific goals."

The committee has made it mandatory for all central universities to send yearly admission reports. These reports must show the different backgrounds of their students, including gender, caste categories (SC/ST/OBC), social status, ethnicity, whether they come from villages or cities, nationality (Indian or foreign), and economic class. Each university needs to share this detailed information with both their academic decision-making bodies and administrative councils every year.

On 'Institutes of Eminence': The committee strongly objected to the massive budget cut for developing world-class universities - from Rs. 1,800 crore this year to justRs. 475 crore next year.

It also raised alarms about delays in submitting spending reports by colleges and universities that receive grants. To fix this, the panel suggested creating a strict system to hold responsible officials accountable for these delays.

The committee reviewed the government's plan to establish 20 'Institutes of Eminence' (IoEs) and raised concerns about the slow progress. Eight years after the program began, only 12 institutes have been approved. The panel urged the government to speed up the selection process for the remaining 8 IoEs. It also recommended expanding the program to include other prestigious universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

Fellowship delays: The committee noted that despite the Union government increasing the PM Research Fellowship (PMRF) budget from Rs. 350 crore to Rs. 600 crore this year, only Rs. 282 crore has been disbursed so far. To address this underutilization of funds, the panel recommended establishing concrete measures to ensure full and effective use of the allocated budget in the 2025-26 fiscal year.

The committee also addressed delays in disbursing Junior and Senior Research Fellowships (JRF/SRF). While the education ministry attributed these delays to late submissions by universities, the panel found the current monthly claim process overly bureaucratic for these two-year fellowships.

To improve efficiency, the committee recommended simplifying the fellowship claim process, suggesting the ministry reduce unnecessary administrative hurdles in the system.

Education loans: The committee's report highlighted trends in education loan disbursements using data from the Indian Banks' Association (IBA). While there has been consistent growth in loan approvals - increasing from approximately 1.34 lakh beneficiaries in 2020-21 to 2.75 lakh in 2024-25 - the panel raised concerns about the growth rates. Public sector banks showed modest Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) of 38% and 31% respectively, significantly lower than private banks which achieved much higher growth rates of 102% and 87% during the same period. This disparity in performance between public and private banks has drawn the committee's attention.

Expressing dissatisfaction with these growth figures, the committee urged public sector banks to improve their loan processing efficiency. It specifically recommended streamlining the loan approval system and called for coordinated efforts between the education department and finance ministry to simplify application procedures.

UGC teacher recruitment regulations: The committee also examined the controversial draft teacher recruitment regulations proposed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), which have faced strong resistance from educators and students. Highlighting that just 239 of India's 1,100 universities come under central government control, the panel stressed the need for broader consultation. It recommended that the UGC involve all stakeholders - including state universities, teachers' associations, and student representatives - before finalizing the new hiring guidelines.

The report emphasized that as the statutory regulatory authority, the UGC must carefully re-examine its 2025 draft regulations to ensure they respect the legal autonomy of both central and state universities. It specifically warned that the new rules must not override existing university laws passed by Parliament and state legislatures.

Also Read: