Editorial 1: The Indian university and the search for a V-C

Context

The UGC’s draft regulations emphasize the need to reinvent university governance.

Introduction

Concerns have been raised from multiple sources regarding the Draft University Grants Commission Regulations, 2025, on minimum qualifications for the appointment and promotion of teachers and academic staff in universities and colleges, as well as measures to uphold standards in higher education, which have been released for discussion.

Concerns focus on the method of appointing Vice-Chancellors and the expanded experience criteria.
These aspects must be analyzed considering the evolving federal structure and relevant legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.

A lesser role for the State executive

LimitedRole of State Executives: The Supreme Court has reduced State executives’ role in selecting Vice-Chancellors (VCs).
- Many States still include their nominees in selection committees under State laws.
SupremeCourt Rulings: The Court ruled that State executives must not be involved in the selection process.
- Cases like Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (2019) and others (2022-2023) confirm this.
- Any State influence makes the selection process invalid.
2025Draft Regulations: The selection committee is limited to experienced former VCs or equivalents.
- Members are nominated by the Chancellor, university’s executive body, and UGC.
CentralUniversities’ Practice: Selection committees include nominees from the University Visitor and UGC.
- Central government executives are not part of the process.
StateExecutives’ Viewpoint: State universities operate under State laws with State government funding.
- They focus on regional development, research, and innovation.
- Central universities have limited seats, and private universities may be costly.

Options to consider

Issue	Options & Considerations
Selection of University Executive Representative	– The representative can be a consensus candidate informally approved by the State executive. – Cannot be a government officer or someone with direct government influence. – A neutral, eminent academic acceptable to the government can be nominated.
Judicial Precedents	– Cases like Kannur University and Sreejith (APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University) state that the State or Central executive should not shortlist or recommend candidates. – This ensures neutrality in Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointments.
State Executive Representation in Selection Committee	– Option 1: University executive nominates a neutral former VC or equivalent. – Option 2: UGC allows one State executive nominee in addition to the University executive representative. – The nominee must be independent, not politically influenced.
Balancing State Executive Concerns	– State concerns should be addressed without conflicts. – A collaborative approach ensures participation without compromising fairness.
Broader Experience Criteria for VCs	– Experience in public policy, government, and industry was accepted before 2010. – Between 2010-2018, UGC regulations focused only on teaching experience (10 years of professorship). – Courts, including Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, followed a restrictive view on qualifications.

The outlook must change

Global VC Selection Norms: Require publications, vision, communication, networking, teamwork, dynamism, and diverse achievements, including sports.
Eminent Leaders as VCs: Many VCs have backgrounds in politics, diplomacy, industry, research, arts, and public service in India and abroad.
Beyond Academia: Excellence is not limited to universities; other fields also produce strong leaders.
Need for Change: Limiting VCs to teaching and research is outdated; universities must adapt and innovate.
Key Skills: Critical thinking, advocacy, and networking are crucial for university leadership today.

Conclusion

Researcher Amanda Goodall (Socrates in the Boardroom) argues that a VC can’t just be a deep thinker like Socrates. Modern universities must be innovative and business-minded, not isolated. Leadership roles need more flexibility, and the UGC’s move in this direction deserves support. A balanced approach will help universities thrive in a changing world.

Editorial 2: An India-U.S. trade agreement and the test of WTO laws

Context

Since both the U.S. and India are members of the World Trade Organization, their trade relations must follow WTO regulations. India should uphold these standards without yielding to U.S. pressure.

Introduction

During PM Modi’s short visit to the U.S. on February 13, 2025, India and the U.S. decided to start talks on the first phase of a multi-sector trade deal by fall 2025. While economists focus on tariffs and trade numbers, it’s also important to look at this from an international trade law perspective.

Trade Agreement Framework

Global Trade Regulations – International trade laws are shaped by GATT and overseen by the WTO.
WTO Compliance – As WTO members, the U.S. and India must adhere to its trade standards.
Significance of the BTA – The proposed Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) holds strategic importance.
Lack of Clarity – The scope and specifics of the BTA remain undefined.
Distinction from FTA – Though not termed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the focus is on its substance rather than its label.

Free trade agreements

WTO Rules on FTAs and Their Impact on the U.S.-India BTA

Agreements	Purpose/recruitment’s of the agreement
MFN Principle	Prohibits discrimination between trading partners, ensuring equal treatment.
FTA Exception	FTAs grant preferential access but must meet strict conditions to be valid.
GATT Article XXIV.8(b)	Requires member countries to remove tariffs and trade barriers on “substantially all trade”within the FTA.
Undefined Scope	The term “substantially all trade” lacks a clear definition but implies a high trade coverage between members.
Legal Validity	The U.S.-India BTA must meet the “substantially all trade” requirement and be notified to the WTO.
Risk of WTO Violation	Lowering tariffs only on select products without offering the same to others breaches WTO law.
Economic Debate	The economic impact of such a trade deal on India remains a subject of discussion.

Interim agreements, enabling clause

Interim Agreement Option: A BTA for select products can comply with WTO laws if notified as an ‘interim agreement’ leading to an FTA.
GATT Article XXIV.5: Allows interim agreements if necessary for forming a free trade area.
Timeframe Requirement: The agreement must outline a plan to establish an FTA within a reasonable period, usually not exceeding 10 years.
Genuine Intent: The BTA should be notified as an interim agreement only if both countries truly intend to finalize an FTA.
Legal Risk: Misusing the interim agreement to cover an MFN-inconsistent deal is legally indefensible.
Enabling Clause Exclusion: WTO’s ‘enabling clause’ allows preferential access for developing countries, but the India-U.S. BTA likely does not qualify.
Market Access Concern: India’s tariff reductions primarily benefit U.S. products, contradicting the spirit of the ‘enabling clause’.

Respecting WTO law

Issues	Key Considerations
Violation of WTO Principles	Reciprocal tariffs contradict MFN and Special & Differential Treatment (S&DT), which allow developing nations to have lower tariff commitments.
Breach of Bound Tariff Rates	The U.S. approach violates WTO commitments, as it exceeds the bound tariff rates agreed upon.
Challenge for India	As a supporter of rule-based trade, India must resist any dilution of WTO principles.
BTA as a Test Case	The BTA negotiations will test India’s ability to uphold WTO laws and avoid giving in to U.S. pressure.

Conclusion

The proposed Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) between India and the U.S. must align with WTO principles to ensure its legal validity. While economic benefits remain debatable, adherence to trade law is crucial. India must navigate these negotiations carefully, ensuring compliance with WTO regulations while safeguarding its economic and strategic interests.

PM IAS MARCH 11 EDITORIAL ANALYSIS