PM IAS EDITORIAL ANALYSIS – JAN 21

Editorial #1 UGC’s draft regulation has serious constitutional issues

UGC’s Draft Regulation on Vice Chancellors: Constitutional and Legal Issues

Introduction

The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) draft regulation concerning the selection and appointment of university vice chancellors has ignited protests, particularly from State governments led by non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) administrations. The primary contention is that the proposed regulation violates the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. These governments have called for its withdrawal, citing constitutional and procedural overreach.

UGC’s Proposal: Amending Regulation 2010

Current Framework: Under the existing UGC regulations, vice chancellors can only be selected from among academicians with a minimum of 10 years of experience as professors.

Proposed Amendment: The UGC seeks to broaden the eligibility criteria, allowing professionals with over 10 years of experience in industry, public administration, or public policy to be considered for the post of vice chancellor.

Constitutional Issues: This proposed regulation raises critical constitutional concerns that need to be examined independently of political considerations. The question revolves around whether the UGC is exceeding its statutory mandate under the UGC Act, 1956.

The Objective and Mandate of the UGC Act

Purpose of the Act: Enacted in 1956, the UGC Act aims to ensure the “co-ordination and determination of standards in universities” and establish the UGC for this purpose.

Functions of the UGC: The Act mandates the UGC to:

1. Promote and coordinate university education.
2. Determine and maintain standards of teaching, examination, and research.
3. Allocate funds to universities for maintenance and development.
4. Recommend measures for the improvement of university education.
5. Advise the Union or State governments on university grants allocation.
6. Collect and disseminate information related to university education.
7. Regulate fees.

Powers Under Section 26: Section 26 empowers the UGC to formulate regulations to implement the Act’s objectives. These regulations must align with the Act and cannot extend beyond its provisions.

The Core Issue: UGC’s Role in Vice Chancellor Selection

The fundamental issue lies in whether the UGC has the authority to regulate the selection and appointment of vice chancellors. Notably:

1. Lack of Legislative Backing: The UGC Act does not contain provisions regarding the selection or appointment of vice chancellors. Its primary focus is on setting educational standards, not administrative appointments.
2. Nature of Subordinate Legislation: Rules and regulations derived from the Act (subordinate legislation) must strictly conform to the parent Act. Any regulation exceeding the Act’s scope is ultra vires and invalid.
3. Judicial Precedent:
   • In Suresh Patilkhede vs The Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra and Others (2011), the Bombay High Court held that qualifications and methods of appointment for vice chancellors do not directly impact educational standards and are beyond the UGC’s purview.
   • Conversely, the Supreme Court in Kalyani Mathivanan vs K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors (2015) ruled that UGC regulations are binding on universities under its jurisdiction, provided they align with parliamentary procedures.

Federal Principles and State Autonomy

Conflict Between State Laws and UGC Regulations: The constitutional question is whether UGC regulations can override State laws. Article 254 of the Constitution addresses the repugnancy of laws:

1. Central Law Supremacy: If a State law conflicts with a Central law on a subject in the Concurrent List, the State law is void to the extent of the conflict, unless it has received Presidential assent.
2. Applicability to Regulations: Regulations, as subordinate legislation, do not hold the same status as Central laws enacted by Parliament. Hence, they cannot override State laws.
3. Judicial Clarification: In Kalyani Mathivanan, the Supreme Court observed that Regulation 7.3.0 concerning the selection of vice chancellors is recommendatory for State universities.

Conclusion

The UGC’s draft regulation raises significant constitutional and legal questions regarding federalism and the limits of subordinate legislation. While the Supreme Court has upheld the binding nature of UGC regulations, it has also recognized the autonomy of State universities in administrative matters. Balancing the UGC’s role in maintaining educational standards with respecting State autonomy is essential to resolving this controversy. Future regulations must adhere strictly to the UGC Act’s mandate while fostering cooperative federalism in India’s higher education sector.

Editorial #2 Prioritising IMEC is in America’s best interest

Prioritising the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC): Strategic Implications for the U.S. and India

Introduction

The United States-India relationship has evolved into a pivotal strategic partnership since the 1990s, gaining bipartisan support in both nations. This collaboration is driven by shared goals of economic growth, regional security, and the promotion of democratic values. The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), announced in 2023, exemplifies this partnership and represents a transformative vision for regional economic cooperation. For the United States, prioritising IMEC aligns with strategic interests and creates a compelling alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

IMEC: Vision and Objectives

IMEC aims to establish an integrated trade and connectivity network spanning India, the Middle East, and Europe through the development of advanced physical and digital infrastructure. Key components of the corridor include:

1. Infrastructure Development:
   • Efficient transportation networks comprising railways, shipping routes, and maritime connections.
   • Cross-border electricity and hydrogen pipelines.
   • Advanced digital communication systems.
2. Strategic Goals:
   • Enhance trade connectivity and reduce transportation costs.
   • Diversify global supply chains.
   • Strengthen economic integration among participating nations, including India, the U.S., UAE, Saudi Arabia, Italy, France, Germany, and the European Commission.

Strategic Importance of IMEC

1. An Alternative to China’s BRI:
   • IMEC offers a transparent, market-driven alternative to the BRI, fostering balanced global economic architecture rooted in democratic values.
   • By promoting sustainable and inclusive economic development, IMEC reduces the risk of debt traps often associated with BRI projects.
2. Geopolitical and Economic Opportunities:
   • The corridor enhances energy security, reduces dependence on traditional maritime chokepoints like the Suez Canal, and mitigates supply chain vulnerabilities.
   • It opens avenues for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), particularly in green technologies and digital infrastructure.
3. Environmental Benefits:
   • IMEC aligns with global decarbonisation goals by integrating green hydrogen pipelines and renewable energy initiatives.
   • India’s leadership in green hydrogen development further reinforces the corridor’s climate-friendly objectives.

Challenges to Implementation

1. Complexity of Cooperation:
   • Achieving consensus among diverse stakeholders, each with distinct priorities, is a significant challenge.
   • Infrastructure investments compete with other national priorities, requiring strong political will and strategic alignment.
2. Private Sector Engagement:
   • Encouraging private sector participation necessitates clear pathways for returns on investment and effective risk management.
3. Geopolitical Tensions:
   • Uneven economic benefits among participating nations could create friction.
   • Regional instability, such as conflicts in the Middle East, adds another layer of complexity.

Roles of Key Stakeholders

1. India:
   • As a leader in green hydrogen development and digital infrastructure, India’s role is central to IMEC’s success.
   • The corridor strengthens India’s diplomatic ties with West Asian and European nations while reducing trade costs and boosting maritime logistics.
2. United States:
   • U.S. leadership is crucial in securing multilateral cooperation and ensuring timely project implementation.
   • The Trump administration’s efforts in facilitating the Abraham Accords were instrumental in creating the diplomatic conditions for IMEC. Similarly, future administrations must prioritise this initiative to sustain momentum.
3. Middle Eastern and European Nations:
   • The UAE and Saudi Arabia view IMEC as a means to deepen ties with the West and diversify their economies.
   • European nations, led by proactive countries like France and Italy, are pivotal in providing technical expertise and financial backing.

Strategic Path Forward

1. Institutionalising Coordination:
   • Establish a dedicated multilateral framework to monitor progress, address disputes, and streamline investments.
2. Leveraging Diplomatic Channels:
   • Regular strategic engagement among participating nations is essential to mitigate risks and maintain political will.
3. Scaling Green Initiatives:
   • Expand green hydrogen and renewable energy projects to maximise environmental and economic benefits.
4. Engaging Private Sector:
   • Develop clear policies to attract private investment and ensure robust public-private partnerships.

Conclusion

IMEC transcends traditional infrastructure development, embodying a reimagined approach to regional economic cooperation. By prioritising this ambitious project, the United States and India can establish a sustainable, inclusive, and strategically vital economic network. The corridor’s success will depend on unprecedented levels of coordination among stakeholders, leveraging shared values and addressing challenges with resilience. IMEC not only offers transformative economic opportunities but also aligns with global sustainability goals, paving the way for a balanced and prosperous future.