Why Nitenh, Stalin and Pinarayi have joined the Modi government for the new UGC rules

He University Scholarship Commission (UGC) The 2025 regulation project has become a lightning rod, causing dissension not only of the states governed by the opposition but also within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the BJP. The regulation project, presented by the Minister of Education of the Union, Dharmendra Pradhan, earlier this month, proposes significant changes in the governance of higher education institutions, focusing particularly on the appointment of Vice Chancellors (VC) of the Universities state.

A central element of the controversy is the greatest role granted to university rectors, who are normally governors designated by the Government of the Union, in the selection process of risk capitalists. This measure has been widely criticized as an attack on federalism, a fundamental principle of constitutional democracy of India, and has lit the alarms on the erosion of state autonomy in the configuration of higher education policy.

Among the allies of the NDA, the Janata Dal (United), or JD (U), has been particularly expressive in its opposition to the regulation project. The Bihar Prime Minister, Niten Kumar, has expressed strong reserves on the diminished role of state governments in the appointment of risk capitalists. JD (U) national spokesman, Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, said that limiting the participation of state governments undermines their ability to implement personalized routemays for higher education. He emphasized that the proposed changes would prevent the efforts of state governments to promote educational policies that reflect local needs and aspirations.

Although JD (U) has asked the regulation project, it has also suggested that it will address the matter with the central government led by the BJP after an exhaustive review. This marks another friction point within the NDA, which underlines the challenges of managing a coalition with various regional interests.

Similarly, the Telugu Desam (TDP) party, another key allied of the NDA, has adopted a cautious posture. The national TDP spokesman Deepak Reddy, although he refrained from openly opposing, acknowledged that the party is closely observing the events and would prefer to address the concerns internally instead of politicizing the issue.

The Lok Janshakti (Ram Vilas), or LJP (RV) party also maintained a cautious response, and its vice president, Ak Bajpai, said the matter should be deliberate in Parliament, given the constitutional nature of the role of the chancellor. These cautious reactions of the electors of the NDA indicate an underlying discomfort with the regulation project, even when the parties try to balance their regional interests with their alliance commitments.

The strongest opposition to the regulation project comes from states governed by opposition parties, where the issue has been raised as a broader battle to safeguard federalism and academic autonomy. In Kerala, the Government of the Left Democratic Front (LDF), headed by Prime Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, has been in charge of resistance. The Kerala Legislative Assembly recently approved a unanimous resolution demanding the withdrawal of the regulation project, arguing that it violates the rights of the states enshrined in the Constitution.

Vijayan criticized the regulation project as part of a broader agenda of “commercialization, communalization and centralization” of education, which according to him undermines the democratic functioning of universities. The resolution also pointed out concerns about the inclusion of provisions that allow non -academic people, including private sector professionals, being appointed risk capitalists, warning that this could lead to the commercialization of higher education.

The Congress Prime Minister in Telangana, A. Revanth Reddy, condemned the UGC regulation project as an “attack on the Constitution” and demanded his withdrawal.

In Tamil Nadu, governed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Prime Minister, MK Stalin, has become a key opponent of the regulation project, describing it as “oppressive” and a direct attack on the autonomy of the State in education. Stalin has not only mobilized political support within Tamil Nadu, where the Legislative Assembly approved a resolution against the guidelines project, but has also struck its hand to other states governed by the opposition to build a united front. In their letter to their colleagues main ministers of states not governed by the NDA, Stalin urged them to approve similar resolutions in their respective legislative assemblies and resist “the attempts to centralize power and undermine the federal structure of our country”.

Without stopping in legislative measures, Stalin has also indicated his intention to file legal resources against the regulation project. He argued that the proposed changes raise serious challenges to academic integrity and inclusive development while violating the rights of the State under the concurrent list of the Constitution, which places education under the shared jurisdiction of the center and states.

The growing opposition to the UGC regulation project is not limited to Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The government led by the Karnataka Congress also criticized the proposals, and the main minister, Siddaramaiah, highlighted the possible conflicts between state governments and governors that the new rules could exacerbate. The regulations grant the governors, in their capacity as foreign ministers, the authority to appoint a committee of search and selection of risk capitalists, leaving aside the state governments of the process. Critics have described this change as a shameless attempt to centralize power, allowing the government of the Union to exert greater influence on higher education institutions in the states governed by the opposition.

One of the most controversial provisions of the regulation project is the expansion of the eligibility criteria for the appointments of risk capitalists, which now include industry professionals, public administration and research institutions. Although the UGC has defended this measure as a step towards promoting innovation and collaboration between the academy and other sectors, the opponents argue that it undermines the traditional emphasis on academic experience and could open the door to the politicization and privatization of Higher education The governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, in particular, have given the alarm on the possibility that such appointments prioritize corporate interests on academic values, thus eroding the integrity of state universities.

To the controversy is added the elimination of the role of the state government in the recommendation of candidates for the VC Selection Committee. Currently, states have voice and vote in this process, but the new regulations propose to grant this authority entirely to the chancellor. This change has been widely criticized as a violation of federal principles enshrined in the Constitution. The resolution of the Kerala Assembly explicitly referred to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, which placed education in the concurrent list, emphasizing that the role of the center should limit itself to coordinating and establishing standards instead of dictating administrative processes for state universities .

The reaction against the regulation project has also been fed by concerns about the broader implications of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, under which the proposed changes have been framed. While the NEP demands flexibility, innovation and inclusion, critics argue that its implementation has disproportionately focused on centralizing control at the expense of state autonomy. The UGC regulation project is considered a continuation of this trend, marginalizing even more states in higher education governance.

Pradhan has defended the regulation project, arguing that they are in line with the best global practices and aim to improve academic standards. He said that the new guidelines would contribute greater transparency and uniformity to the selection of risk capitalists while promoting interdisciplinary and innovative approaches in higher education. However, these guarantees have done little to calm the concerns of critics, who see the regulation project as an overreach of the center.

As the controversy develops, it becomes increasingly clear than the 2025 UGC regulation project has touched a sensitive fiber, lighting debates about the balance of power between the center and the states. For the NDA led by the BJP, the rejection of allies such as JD (U) underlines the complexities of coalition policy and the need to address regional sensibilities. For states governed by the opposition, the regulation project represents a broader struggle to preserve federalism and safeguard the autonomy of their educational institutions.

With main ministers such as Stalin prepared to take the legal route and other states demonstrating against the proposals, the battle for the UGC 2025 regulation is far from finishing. As the interested parties of the academic, political and civil society parties intervene, the regulation project is about to become a decisive issue in the current discourse on the future of the Indian Higher Education System.

Subscribe to India Today magazine