Unfortunately, nothing further is happening in terms of rolling out the new accreditation process. It is laudable that the committee has very rightly recognised the flaws in the existing process of ‘one size fit all’. The Committee is unequivocal that there is a case considering the nature of rural economy and the special nature of the HEIs.

It is unfortunate that the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) has become almost dysfunctional. Submission of Institutional Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA) was withdrawn on May 30, 2024, implying that Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs), willing to be assessed and accredited accordingly, were denied the opportunity and they were subject to a long wait for accreditation. Institutions, whose period of validity has expired, are provided with an opportunity to continue to utilise the earlier grade. Tragically, the NAAC website is not updated on a regular basis. The last announcement was hosted on February 10! Such a long silence imminently impacts the credibility of a national-level body. It is all the more surprising that the University Grants Commission (UGC), being its mentoring and regulatory agency, remains unconcerned. Having been entrusted with the responsibility of setting policy and maintaining minimum standards in higher education, it cannot any longer remain dumb.

The responsibility of the UGC gets further enhanced in the context of National Education Policy 2020, attempting to reform the entire accreditation process by the introduction of a binary system of accreditation. The NEP is quite categorical that the new system is aimed at transitioning towards a more focused and efficient accreditation.

The shift towards outcome-based evaluation and tailored assessments according to the type of HEI, emphasises the commitment to improve performance and quality.

To address the same, an overarching committee was constituted with former ISRO chief Dr K Radhakrishnan heading it, in November 2022.

The terms of reference include strengthening the accreditation processes by NAAC; NBA and the ranking system by NIRF, and preparing a roadmap for aligning NAAC, NBA, and NIRF to the proposed National Accreditation Council (NAC). The Committee submitted its report in May 2023, and the Ministry opened it for public response and finally approved the same in August 2024. Unfortunately, nothing further is happening in terms of rolling out the new accreditation process. It is laudable that the committee has very rightly recognised the flaws in the existing process of ‘one size fit all’. The Committee is unequivocal that there is a case considering the nature of rural economy and the special nature of the HEIs.

As a sequel to the onboarding of the new accreditation process, the Council is supposed to be ready with manuals for diverse categories of HEIs as contemplated in the aims of the new system and make ready the attached standard operating procedures (SOPs) and other relevant documents to enable the intending Institutions to be conversant with the process. Even after a year and half, there is no information from the NAAC about this preparation. The Ministry of Education and the UGC are from time to time sharing the draft policies and hosting them on their websites for public consultation. It is not known as to why the Council is keeping all these documents confidential while the stakeholders remain in the dark.

Above all, it appears that the NAAC is engulfed with the controversies of dishonesty and insincerity. After the episode involving Koneru Lakshmaiah deemed University, and the raid by the CBI, the Council had started the cleansing exercise; which should have begun when the then Chairperson Prof Bhushan Patwardhan resigned from the position of the Council alleging the high order of inbreeding prevailing in the system as early as in March 2023. Instead of putting its own house in order, the Council chose to debar a vast number of assessors without notice. As it is known from the press, three reasons are quoted as the sacking of the peer team members, which included the highest number of declines, deviations reported in the assessment and the direct allegations of corruption. It is surprising how a member is fired when the individual is not able to accept the assignment. After all, the members receive just an honorarium. The Council should have condemned the derogatory news published across media platforms. Without following the norms of justice, the Council has no right to damage the reputation of the members, who rendered yeomen service towards upholding the dignity of the Council in particular and the system in general.

Weeding out the wild plants is necessary, but the process employed shall be fair and as per law.

Against this backdrop, the Council must urgently initiate the reform process, the sooner the better.

(The writer is a former Vice-Chancellor of Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur)