One more U-Turn...why didn't you think before throwing....Mr. Minster?

Final decision on NCHER rests with Centre, says Kapil Sibal

Aarti Dhar - The Hindu

NEW DELHI: Under criticism from his Cabinet colleagues, Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal on Saturday sought to clarify that the final decision on the proposed National Commission on Higher Education and Research (NCHER) remained with the government at the “highest level” and that the decision would be “acceptable” to the Ministry.

Speaking to journalists at the end of a daylong consultation organised by the task force on the draft NCHER bill with academics from across the country, Mr. Sibal said the bill was the property of the task force. The government could change its title and take the final call.

The Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry and the Bar Council of India oppose the idea of transferring medical and legal education to the Human Resource Development Ministry, which is piloting the legislation and which has set up the task force.

The task force decided to set up an ‘informal' committee of four eminent persons. It will study the drafts of the NCHER and National Council for Human Resource in Health (NCHRH) bills to ensure there was no overlap. The committee will comprise Srinath Reddy and Ranjit Roy Choudhary (both members of the HCHRH task force) and M.K. Bhan and Syeda Hamid, both members of the NCHER task force. Mr. Sibal said the inputs received at the consultation would be taken into account while finalising the draft NCHER bill before it was placed before the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) next month. After the CABE approved it, the draft Bill would be sent to the government.

Task force member N.R. Madhava Menon said the legislation was aimed at granting more autonomy and academic freedom to universities, and this would lead to more accountability. The government would have no role in the setting up of the commission, and there were mechanisms to check its misuse. “We also want medical, legal and agricultural higher education to be under the purview of the commission,” he said. The task force would recommend to the government to amend the Constitution for bringing agriculture education to the Concurrent List. Another member M.K. Bhan said the second draft of the Bill — discussed at the consultation — was more consistent with the federal structure, as it had representation for the States, and for a wide spectrum of areas. The participants also agreed with the new draft that had a provision for setting up a general council that allowed for wider discussions. Of the newly constituted Board of Governors that replaced the Medical Council of India, one member turned up for the consultation.

SC rejects govt plea to hinder fresh admissions in Deemed Universities

Supreme Court today rejected the HRM ministry plea for injunction against fresh admissions by the Deemed to be Universities, particularly the 44 institutions sought to be derecognized in a review committee report.
Hearing the Viplav Sharma vs. Government of India, UGC & others case today the bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Gyan Sudha Misra rejected the Ministry's plea against fresh admissions by the deemed universities saying that it could not pass any such order as the validity of the very constitution of the high-powered Tondon Committee is under challenge. Next hearing in the case will be on August 3.
"The constitution of the committee is itself under challenge, it has to be adjudicated first. There is no point in passing any injunction. It would not be appropriate for us to pass any injunction," the bench said. Besides, the apex court pointed out that there were allegations that Professor Tondon himself was heading a deemed university and it was not appropriate for him to head the high-powered committee which sought de-recognition of the aggrieved universities.
Though Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the government, pleaded that at least, a condition be imposed that any fresh admissions would be subject to the final outcome of the case pending in the apex court, the bench was in no mood to grant any relief to the Centre.
The ministry’s similar plea had been rejected by the court earlier too. The HRD ministry has been adamant against the 44 deemed universities after its review committee under Prof. PN Tandon recommended de-recognition. The bench had also agreed to examine the validity of the government's decision to de-recognise the varsities as the institutions claimed that under the statutory rules, it was only the UGC which has got the power to strip them of their deemed status.
It is worth mentioning that the Tandon committee didn’t give its detailed report and the methodology used to arrive at its decision in assessment of the deemed universities on nine different aspects.
Earlier the apex court had directed the Centre to put on the Internet the recommendations of the Tondon Committee and the Task Force. On March 8, the Supreme Court had on March 8 granted two weeks to the aggrieved varsities to file their responses on the Centre's decision to de-recognise them.
During earlier hearings the Union HRD Ministry had denied the allegations of the institutes that they were not given sufficient opportunity to explain their academic performance before deciding to de-recognise them.
Stoutly defending its decision, the Centre, in its additional affidavit, had said its high-powered review committee and task force were more concerned with the academic excellence of these universities, rather than infrastructural facilities. The HRD ministry said the universities sought to be de-recognised were being run as family fiefdoms, rather than as institutions of academic excellence which they claim to be.