On July 9, the Narendra Modi government awarded Institute of Eminence (IoE) tag to six institutes, one of which was Reliance Foundation-owned non-existent Jio Institute. This decision faced severe criticism by all sections of the civil society, media as well as the opposition.
The Narendra Modi government was accused of bending University Grants Commission (UGC) and MHRD ruled in order to favour of industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Institute. At the time, HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar denied the accusations and said that the decision was made by an expert panel in which the centre played no role.
However, the details stated in the Right to Information (RTI) filed by The Indian Express reveal that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) twisted and altered draft rules to allow Jio Institute to be eligible for the tag, despite disagreements with the HRD and Finance ministries.
Here’s what the RTI reveals:
1. Qualification and Experience of sponsors
According to the HRD ministry’s draft, sponsors of the private institutes applying to the greenfield category must have experience, either as sponsors or heads (vice-chancellors or directors) in establishing a higher education institution.
Both Nita Ambani and Mukesh Ambani have no actual experience in establishing such institutions.
On June 13, 2016, the PMO diluted this requirement by replacing it with a clause requiring only ‘some’ members to have demonstrated merely a ‘commitment’ to education in the past.
Later on June 30, 2016, HRD replied to the PMO and wrote, “This requirement is a little generic and intangible; most persons would be able to satisfy that.”
The PMO wrote back on July 2, 2016, insisting on keeping its changes. “There are a large number of such people around who have been involved in the establishment of universities earlier, and whose presence may not necessarily be good for the institution. A more principles-based condition, as we propose, would give the EEC (Empowered Expert Committee) enough flexibility to eliminate such individuals, besides also encouraging sponsors to enlist the services of those genuinely interested,” PMO wrote.
The final norms carried the PMO’s version.
2. Land requirement
The HRD ministry insisted that at the time of applying for IoE tag, private institutes must possess the adequate land.
However, the PMO changed this clause to a ‘commitment’ to make land available as a good enough criterion. This allowed the Jio Institute, which did not even have any land to its name, be eligible for the tag.
The final norms carried PMO’s version.
3. Time required to achieve student-teacher ratio
According to HRD ministry’s draft, an institute deemed IoE must have achieved a 10:1 student-teacher ratio in a time span of three years.
The PMO changed it to five years.
On June 27, 2016, MHRD expressed disagreement with PMO’s decision. In an official note, MHRD wrote, “Three years (in) itself is a concession, and there cannot be a much more reduced standard for a world class institution in comparison to a non-world class institution. The students in the first five years would be undergoing education through reduced academic standards which cannot be the hallmark of a world class institution.”
The final norms carried PMO’s version.
4. Flexibility in Course Structure
MHRD said that IoEs can have flexibility of course structure in terms of the number of years needed to complete a degree. However, the minimum number of credit hours required in each course should be followed as prescribed by regulatory authorities.
The PMO removed the minimum credit hours requirement, which is the most basic requirement stipulated by all foreign and domestic institutes.
On June 27, 2016, MHRD wrote back, “This cannot be agreed to since this may lead to an anomalous situation of B.Sc degrees being given after 1 year without the total credit hours being satisfied, and, a supposedly would class university giving substandard degrees.”
The final norms carried PMO’s version.
5. Finance
According to MHRD, private IoE should have a corpus fund of Rs 1000 crore. However, the PMO reduced the corpus fund to Rs 100 crore, but the institutes were now expected to show availability of another Rs 1,500 crore.
The final draft reduced the requirement of corpus fund to Rs 60 crore.
6. Regulatory Powers and Regular Audits
The MHRD wanted to entrust UGC with the power to direct revision of the corpus fund of private IoEs.
However, the PMO’s office deleted the clause altogether.
On June 27, in its official note to the PMO, the ministry wrote, “If not done, over a period of time, the corpus fund of ordinary deemed-to-be university would become more than the WCIs (world class institutions).”
The ministry also suggested that the UGC should have the power to order a CAG audit of a private IoE. PMO scrapped this clause as well. Which meant that these private institutes will have almost no governmental regulation, nor will the government be able to audit them, an odd leeway considering the government itself is sponsoring these institutions.
The final norms carried PMO’s version.
7. Accountability
The MHRD wanted private and public IoEs to be reviewed at least once a year to see if they are adhering to said promises and plans.
The PMO changed it to a review once in three years.
Allegations of crony capitalism against the Narendra Modi government have gained much media attention since the Jio Institute controversy. These revelations made by the Indian Express leave little doubt about how the rules were bent by the highest authorities – the PMO itself – to orchestrate the Institute of Eminence scam.
Similar allegations surfaced with respect to the Rafael deal struck by the NDA government, which benefits industrialist Anil Ambani’s companies which have no experience in defence or aircraft manufacturing.