Introduction

India’s higher education system is one of the largest in the world, and since 2016, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has aimed to provide a structured evaluation of institutions. With participation expanding from 3,565 institutions in its inception year to 14,163 in 2025, and categories rising from four to seventeen, the NIRF has created a sense of competition and accountability. However, critical flaws remain: skewed weightage for subjective parameters, inadequate measurement of inclusivity, and overemphasis on reputational factors. These shortcomings risk reducing the exercise into a branding tool rather than a driver of equity and quality in higher education.

Why is NIRF in the News?

India Rankings 2025 has once again been dominated by legacy public institutions, underscoring persistent inequalities in India’s higher education landscape. Despite its expanded coverage, the framework continues to rely on flawed methodologies, including subjective peer perception and incomplete outreach and inclusivity parameters. Of particular concern is the neglect of socio-economically disadvantaged groups and students with disabilities in the inclusivity metric. The stakes are high: without reform, NIRF risks entrenching elitism and doing little to democratise access to quality education.

Is NIRF making higher education more equitable?

1. Outreach and Inclusivity (OI): Currently limited to regional and gender diversity while omitting socio-economic disadvantage and disability.
2. Troubling trends: Only JNU and AIIMS, Delhi scored above 70 in OI among the top 10, exposing the marginalisation of weaker sections.
3. Reservation policies: Central institutions still fail to adequately fill OBC, SC, and ST vacancies, undermining affirmative action.

Are the ranking parameters robust and fair?

1. Five key parameters: Teaching & resources (30%), research (30%), graduation outcomes (20%), outreach & inclusivity (10%), peer perception (10%).
2. Peer perception flaw: Criticised by Education Minister; reputation-based, subjective, and often biased against state-run or suburban institutions.
3. Self-declared data: Heavy reliance risks manipulation; false submissions remain unpunished.
4. Bibliometric dependence: While verifiable, this excludes non-English and socially relevant research output.

What challenges persist in India’s higher education system?

1. Regional imbalance: Few top-quality institutions outside metropolitan hubs.
2. Faculty shortage: Outside the top 100 institutions, a dearth of PhD-qualified teachers continues.
3. Weak research culture: 58% of management institutions reported zero research publications.
4. Mentorship gap: Legacy institutions rarely mentor emerging universities.

How can NIRF evolve beyond rankings?

1. Policy tool, not ritual: Insights must inform reforms instead of being an annual exercise.
2. Stronger inclusivity metrics: Incorporating socio-economic and disability parameters alongside gender and region.
3. Accountability: Penalising institutions submitting false data.
4. Capacity building: Encouraging collaboration between established and upcoming institutions.
5. Affirmative action: Monitoring recruitment policies and enforcing reservations in faculty hiring.

Conclusion

The NIRF has created awareness about institutional performance and expanded its scope significantly. Yet, unless it addresses fundamental flaws, especially inclusivity, fairness in assessment, and accountability, it risks becoming a branding exercise. For India’s higher education system to truly progress, rankings must serve as instruments of reform, driving equity, excellence, and social justice.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2015] The quality of higher education in India requires major improvement to make it internationally competitive. Do you think that the entry of foreign educational institutions would help improve the quality of technical and higher education in the country? Discuss.

Linkage: The NIRF 2025 rankings expose gaps in research output, inclusivity, and global competitiveness of Indian institutions. While reforms in ranking parameters can drive internal improvements, the entry of foreign universities may create healthy competition and raise benchmarks. Thus, the PYQ directly connects with debates on how India can achieve globally competitive higher education through both domestic reforms and external participation.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now