💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Education

  • Govt. not in favour of treating English as ‘native’ language

    Why in the News

    The Union government has told the Supreme Court that it “has an issue” with treating English as an indigenous language. It has assured the court that it will move quickly on consultations to grant the current Class 6 batch a one-time reprieve from the mandatory third-language paper in the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Class 10 examination. The court had earlier asked the CBSE to consider that relief. The petitioners want English moved out of the indigenous category into the “non-native” or foreign language category, and the Centre has reserved its submissions on that question. The court has also issued notice on petitions filed by minority schools on the three-language scheme. The dispute is about classification rather than count, because what counts as an indigenous language decides how many Indian languages a student must carry.

    What is the three-language formula under the National Education Policy, 2020?

    1. What it requires: The National Education Policy, 2020 continues the three-language formula in school education. At least two of the three languages taught must be native to India.
    2. Why classification decides the burden: A language treated as indigenous can fill one of the two mandatory Indian-language slots. English placed outside that category cannot, so a student carries an additional Indian language alongside it.
    3. Choice rests with States and students: The policy states that no language will be imposed on any State. The three languages are chosen by States, regions and students themselves.

    What has the Centre now told the Supreme Court?

    1. The petitioners’ ask: Counsel for the petitioners sought an order shifting English into the “non-native” or foreign language category.
    2. The Centre’s objection: The Centre said it “has an issue” with that, and asked to make its submissions before any order is passed.
    3. The assurance on the reprieve: The Centre told a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India that a meeting with the officials concerned would be arranged within a day or two to decide on the one-time reprieve for Class 6 students.

    Why does the current Class 6 batch sit at the centre of the case?

    1. One batch faces full implementation: Under the CBSE guidelines, students in Classes 7 to 9 were exempted from the third-language requirement. The current Class 6 batch was slated for full implementation of the scheme.
    2. The examination date: Full implementation carries a mandatory Class 10 Board examination in the third language by 2031.
    3. The court’s earlier direction: At an earlier hearing the court asked the CBSE to consider relieving Class 6 students of writing the third-language examination in Class 10.
    4. The Bench on sequencing: A judge on the Bench said time is needed for students and for infrastructure to reach parity across education boards. Starting with the mother tongue, then an indigenous language, then another indigenous or foreign language works only where it begins in a lower class.

    What else is now before the court?

    1. The minority schools’ challenge: The court issued notice to the government on petitions filed by minority schools on the implementation of the three-language scheme.
    2. The English question is undecided: No order was passed on shifting English out of the indigenous category, because the Centre asked to be heard on it first.
    3. Timeline pressure from the petitioners: Counsel for the petitioners said parents were anxious and urged the court against further adjournments. The hearing stands adjourned to 17 September.

    Challenges to the three-language formula

    1. Political resistance where the formula reads as imposition: A centrally set language requirement collides with State language policy. Eg. Tamil Nadu has followed a two-language policy of Tamil and English since 1968, after the anti-Hindi agitations of 1965, and has refused the three-language formula since.
      The Fix: Make the third language a State-notified choice, and tie central funding to teacher recruitment for whichever language a State selects rather than to adoption of the formula itself.
    2. Teacher availability limits real choice: A school cannot offer a language for which no trained teacher is posted. Eg. UDISE+ returns record over one lakh single-teacher schools in the country.
      The Fix: Sanction language-specific posts and permit a shared language teacher across a cluster of schools before the subject becomes examinable.
    3. Foundational reading is the prior constraint: A third language added at the middle stage assumes reading fluency that many students do not have. Eg. The ASER 2024 survey found under half of Class 5 students in rural India able to read a Class 2 level text.
      The Fix: Sequence the third language behind a measured foundational literacy benchmark in the mother tongue, rather than behind a fixed grade.
    4. Minority institutions’ autonomy is engaged: Article 30(1) gives minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and a prescribed set of languages touches that right. Eg. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), an eleven-judge Constitution Bench held that regulation of such institutions is permissible for standards and not for control of administration.
      The Fix: Frame the language requirement as an attainment standard rather than as a prescribed language set, so minority institutions retain the choice of which languages meet it.

    Conclusion

    The case turns on a classification question rather than on the number of languages taught. Whether English is treated as indigenous decides whether a student carries two Indian languages or three. The Centre has reserved its position on that and has offered relief only to one batch of students. What remains unresolved is what happens to every batch that follows it.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS2, 15.0 marks] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.”

  • Reclaiming universities through trust, student voice

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has stayed the Bar Council of India (BCI)’s order against the graduating batch of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad. The same intervention quashed all first information reports (FIRs) against the protesting students. It declared that the BCI has no disciplinary control over students. It also reduced the three year practice condition for writing the judicial services examination to one year. The order follows a protest by law students seeking a say in their own convocation, widely attributed to an oral remark by the Chief Justice of India that was quickly clarified. The contest is over whether campus unrest is a failure of student discipline or a failure of a governance model that leaves students out of the decisions binding them.

    What is academic freedom?

    1. The freedom to teach, research and question: Academic freedom is the entitlement of those engaged in scholarly teaching and research to decide what to study, what to teach and what to challenge, without direction from the government or the university administration.
    2. No express Indian guarantee: The Constitution of India does not mention academic freedom. Article 5(3) of the German Basic Law guarantees scientific freedom (Wissenschaftsfreiheit) as a right of everyone engaged in scholarly teaching and research.
    3. A recognised right elsewhere: The Constitutions of Japan, South Africa, Portugal and Spain contain a comparable freedom. Article 137 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong provides that educational institutions may retain autonomy and enjoy academic freedom.
    4. Its limit is conduct, not speech: The freedom carries no right to defame or to engage in anti-national activity. Where an academic activity involves conduct rather than speech, the state is entitled to regulate that conduct.

    Why is curriculum the sharp edge of the dispute?

    1. Curriculum is set without the people it binds: University curriculum should be decided by the stakeholders, including students. Eg. Delhi University dropped a paper on the Delhi Sultanate along with some other papers.
    2. Students read such changes as political: Curriculum changes of this kind are seen as having ideological reasons rather than academic ones, which turns an academic decision into a governance grievance.
    3. The direction of restraint runs both ways: Government is not to dictate to universities what to teach, how to teach and what not to teach. Universities owe the same freedom to their departments and faculties.
    4. The campus exists for the contested question: Universities are meant to be a special place for reflection, inquiry and discussion, which is the function a closed curriculum process removes.

    What do experiences abroad show about academic freedom under pressure?

    1. The United States has used funding as leverage: Federal funding has been weaponised to reshape campus culture. Diversity programmes have been dismantled and research funding in areas such as climate change has been reduced.
    2. Permitting protest has itself invited pressure: Universities have faced pressure for allowing student protests, including those over Gaza.
    3. Neither ideological side is exempt: Right wing and left wing regimes have both, at times, sought to control universities.
    4. The pattern is old: Arnold Toynbee resigned from King’s College London in 1924 over his writings on the Greek army’s atrocities. Professors were persecuted during the McCarthy era.
    5. Funders now shape the research agenda: Declining public funding has left research agendas increasingly influenced by funders, corporations and pharmaceutical companies.

    What is the control model of university governance?

    1. Authority sits in one office: Most universities remain Vice-Chancellor centric. Students, who are the reason universities exist, have little say in their governance.
    2. Grievances have no route upward: Vice-Chancellors rarely hold open houses and are often inaccessible to ordinary students. Unaddressed grievances leave students feeling ignored, and some then take extreme steps.
    3. Control substitutes for dialogue: Administrations adopted the control model as governments increasingly sought to control universities. A community of highly educated faculty and young people requires dialogue, trust and openness rather than surveillance.
    4. Knowledge creation needs the opposite conditions: Universities exist to innovate and create knowledge, which requires the freedom to question everything and challenge existing ideas.

    How does under-investment compound the control problem?

    1. The policy target has not been met: The National Education Policy 2020 promises public investment of 6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in education. Public investment has steadily declined and hovers around 4 to 4.1 per cent.
    2. Higher education gets the smallest share: Within that spending, higher education receives the smallest allocation, so the system is over-regulated and grossly underfunded at the same time.
    3. Autonomy is not alien to the system: The ancient Gurukul system was entirely autonomous, and the present arrangement regulates far more and funds far less.
    4. The shortfall is visible on campus: Public university infrastructure has deteriorated and hostels are in acute shortage, which produced the recent deaths in New Delhi. Faculty positions remain vacant and guest faculty are poorly paid.
    5. Teaching and examinations both fail the student: Poor teaching frustrates students. Repeated examination paper leaks add to their stress.

    What do Vice-Chancellor appointments reveal?

    1. Natural justice is overlooked: In one case a Vice-Chancellor changed the composition of the selection committee, chaired it and voted in the selection of his wife. She was appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
    2. The courts did not correct it: The judiciary declined to follow its own precedents of quashing such appointments.
    3. An adverse record is not a bar: Individuals with questionable records and adverse Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) reports have been appointed, and some State universities face allegations of bribery.
    4. Recruitment rewards leaning over merit: Faculty recruitment over-emphasises ideological leanings rather than merit. Ideological governments may prefer candidates with particular leanings, and merit should not be completely undermined on that account.
    5. Examination integrity follows appointment integrity: No examination system can be foolproof where paper setters, moderators or testing officials are appointed for reasons other than absolute merit and integrity.

    Who actually absorbs the blame for campus unrest?

    1. The anger travels past the administration: Student frustration erupts against the government rather than against university administrations. The government received the criticism for the actions of the Vice-Chancellor in the appointment case.
    2. Much of it is avoidable on campus: The backlash could largely be avoided where administrations engage students in meaningful dialogue and provide timely relief.
    3. The government is not a bystander either: Administrations adopted the control model because governments sought control of universities, so the incentive that produced the model is a governmental one.

    What does the liberty model change?

    1. Trust is the operative mechanism: The liberty model of governance was implemented across three universities over 16 years. Students who are trusted act more responsibly in turn.
    2. Access without gatekeeping: Students met the Vice-Chancellor without appointments and raised personal concerns and difficulties. That access made frank conversations possible when difficult or unpopular decisions had to be taken.
    3. Unpopular ideas are protected: The model treats the university as a space where even the most unpopular ideas can be freely debated, which is the opposite of the top-down model.
    4. Students sit inside the decisions: Students are given a meaningful role in academic, administrative and financial decisions, including faculty appointments, procurement, curriculum design and the drafting of university regulations.
    5. A statutory precedent already exists: Students at Aligarh Muslim University have a statutory role in selecting the Vice-Chancellor.

    Challenges to the liberty model of university governance

    1. Participation rights can be captured by party politics: Campus unions aligned to national parties can convert a participation right into a channel for external political control. Eg. Delhi University Students’ Union elections are contested by the student wings of national parties.
      The Fix: Tie student participation to reserved seats on academic and finance bodies with fixed terms, so it runs through statutory channels rather than street mobilisation.
    2. A Vice-Chancellor cannot devolve powers that are not his: Faculty appointments and university finances are governed by University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations and State legislation, so student participation in them rests on the incumbent’s discretion. Eg. The Vice-Chancellor is himself selected by the Chancellor or Visitor from a search committee panel.
      The Fix: Amend university statutes to create student membership on selection and finance committees, so participation has a legal basis rather than a personal one.
    3. The model lapses with the person who ran it: A governance style adopted by one Vice-Chancellor ends when that office changes hands, since nothing in the statute compels a successor to continue it. Eg. Open house access is an administrative practice and not a rule.
      The Fix: Write grievance redressal timelines and open house frequency into university ordinances so the practice survives a change of office.
    4. Trust cannot supply what money supplies: Dialogue does not create hostel seats, permanent faculty or laboratory funding, which are the material grounds of much campus unrest. Eg. Sanctioned faculty posts in central and State universities stay vacant regardless of the governance style adopted.
      The Fix: Link central grants to filled sanctioned posts and audited hostel capacity, so funding follows the deficits that generate protest.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s order settles who may discipline a law student. It does not settle who governs a campus. Curriculum decisions, convocation arrangements and appointments all turn on whether students hold any formal seat in university decision making, and at present they hold almost none. The measure worth watching is whether university statutes are amended to give students standing on academic and selection bodies, since a governance practice resting on the person in office leaves with that person.

    Higher Education in India

    1. Second largest system in the world: Total enrolment is estimated at 4.65 crore in 2026, up from 3.42 crore in 2014-15.
    2. Institutional spread: India hosts over 1,168 universities and 45,473 colleges, against 760 universities in 2014-15.
    3. Participation is short of the target: The Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education, meaning enrolment at that stage as a share of the population in the corresponding age group, stands at 28.4 per cent against the National Education Policy 2020 target of 50 per cent by 2035.
    4. Women now enrol marginally more than men: The Gender Parity Index stands at 1.01, indicating slightly higher female than male participation for the first time.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Higher Education

    1. Entry 25, List III: Education, including technical and medical education and universities, is a Concurrent List subject after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976.
    2. Entry 66, List I: Coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education and research is reserved to the Union.
    3. Entry 63, List I: Banaras Hindu University, Aligarh Muslim University and Delhi University are institutions of national importance under Union competence, along with any other so declared by Parliament.
    4. Article 30(1): Religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
    5. Article 19(1)(a): Free speech on campus is protected, subject only to the restrictions Article 19(2) itself permits.

    Laws and Rules Governing Higher Education

    1. University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Establishes the UGC to coordinate and determine standards in university education and to disburse grants to universities and colleges.
    2. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987: Creates the statutory regulator for technical education, covering planning, norms and approval of technical institutions.
    3. National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993: Creates the regulator for teacher education programmes and the institutions that run them.
    4. Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023: Establishes the National Research Foundation to seed and fund research across higher educational institutions, including State universities.

    Government Initiatives for Higher Education

    1. National Education Policy 2020: Replaces the National Policy on Education, 1986, and is built on access, equity, quality, affordability and accountability.
    2. Academic Bank of Credits: A digital repository holding course credits, which enables multiple entry and exit within a degree programme.
    3. Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR): A single student identifier linking academic records, skills and transfers in one portal.
    4. Prime Minister’s Research Fellowship: Doctoral fellowships for research scholars, expanded to award 10,000 new fellowships.

    Challenges in Higher Education Governance

    1. Fragmented regulatory structure: Multiple bodies issue overlapping and sometimes conflicting guidelines to the same institution, which delays academic decisions. Eg. A technical department inside a university answers to the All India Council for Technical Education and the UGC at the same time.
      The Fix: Consolidate approvals under a single higher education regulator with separate verticals for funding, standard setting and accreditation.
    2. Quality is unmeasured across much of the system: Over 30 per cent of Indian higher educational institutions remain unaccredited as of early 2026. Eg. Accreditation by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council is not a precondition for most colleges to award degrees.
      The Fix: Make one completed accreditation cycle a condition for degree granting status and for central grants.
    3. Research spending is stagnant: Research and development expenditure stands at 0.64 per cent of GDP, against about 2.4 per cent in China and 3.4 per cent in the United States. Eg. India contributes under 5 per cent of global research publications.
      The Fix: Route National Research Foundation funding towards State universities, which carry most enrolment and almost none of the research grant.
    4. Employability does not follow the degree: Curricula are not aligned to hiring requirements, so enrolment growth does not convert into work. Eg. Only about 4 per cent of higher education carries formal skill training.
      The Fix: Embed apprenticeship credits inside degree programmes under the National Credit Framework.

    Back2Basics: Bar Council of India

    1. A statutory body under the Advocates Act, 1961: It regulates the legal profession and legal education in India.
    2. Standard setting: It lays down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, and prescribes the conditions on which a law degree is recognised for enrolment.
    3. Composition: Its members are elected by the State Bar Councils, with the Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India as ex officio members.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2014, GS2, 12.5 marks] Should the premier institutes like IITs/IIMs be allowed to retain premier status, allowed more academic independence in designing courses and also decide mode/criteria of selection of students. Discuss in light of the growing challenges.”

  • Missing: boundary walls, bathrooms, blackboards

    Why in the News

    Government schools across Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are running without boundary walls, functional wash rooms, sufficient classrooms or electricity. Children in several of them sit on verandas, under trees, or in a single room shared with storage almirahs and meal utensils. A citizen audit campaign called ‘School thik karo’, run by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) since 15 August, asks residents to download a checklist, audit their local school and post the findings, covering drinking water, boundary walls, wash rooms and midday meals. These schools have sanctioned buildings, sanctioned teaching posts and an annual maintenance head in the budget. What is absent is the capacity to convert those into a room a child can sit in. State attention has meanwhile moved to a small tier of flagship institutions.

    What did the four State ground reports find?

    1. Bihar, schools operating without a facility of any kind: Three schools in Muzaffarpur and Vaishali districts run without a boundary wall, a wash room or storage for midday meal supplies.
    2. A primary school of 119 students, established in 1982, has plaster falling from the corridor its two classrooms open onto. Its six teachers use neighbours’ bathrooms and the children go in the open.
    3. A middle school of 283 students has two rooms, so Class 8 sits on the veranda and Classes 1 and 2 sit under a tree behind the kitchen.
    4. A primary school in Vaishali has no building of its own. It runs 91 students across Classes 1 to 5 in a single room of a community centre, alongside department almirahs and meal utensils.
    5. Rajasthan, the approach to the school is itself the barrier: In Unchki village of Deeg district there is no public road to the school, so students walk through a graveyard and a muddy path to reach it.
    6. Corridors serve as classrooms in three schools of the district, and one teacher takes Classes 4 and 5 together for want of rooms or electricity.
    7. None of the three has functional wash rooms, so children walk home in the middle of the school day and return.
    8. The district falls within the National Capital Region and lies 165 km from Delhi.
    9. Uttar Pradesh, the cost of a dirty wash room: A cab driver in Lucknow is moving his 11 year old daughter out of a government primary school after a prolonged urinary tract infection that the family attributes to the school’s wash room.
    10. The transfer costs an additional Rs 4,000 a month, which the household is meeting by cutting other spending.
    11. Drinking water at the school arrives intermittently and the wash room’s water supply is often dysfunctional, so students fetch water from nearby houses.
    12. Madhya Pradesh, buildings condemned and services withdrawn: A middle school in Hirapur village of Sehore district runs eight classes in three rooms, after the primary block on the same premises was abandoned six months ago.
    13. Its 22 students sit on mats without benches, in rooms with dim lighting, broken almirahs, fans that do not work and rainwater seeping through the roof.
    14. One of the two student wash rooms is functional, so girls and boys use the same toilet.
    15. The self help group contracted to cook the midday meal stopped three months ago, and the school in charge is buying ration himself while awaiting reimbursement.
    16. A second school 20 km away, of 104 students, has had its electricity connection cut because water leaking through the ceiling was reaching the wiring.

    Where does the teaching itself break down?

    1. Attendance runs at roughly half the roll: Teachers at the three Rajasthan schools say 50 to 60 percent of enrolled students come on a given day, and they attribute part of that absence to the infrastructure.
    2. Posted teachers are absent or shared: At one Rajasthan school neither of the two teachers came on the day of the visit, and a teacher posted elsewhere visits only after finishing his own school day.
    3. Senior classes go unstaffed: At the Madhya Pradesh school of 104 students, all three teachers for Classes 6 to 8 were on leave and the principal was away at a training exercise, leaving two primary teachers in charge.
    4. The commute eats the school day: One headmaster travels 15 km each way and a teacher 40 km daily by motorcycle to reach schools in rural Bihar.
    5. Staff are under orders not to speak: Teachers in the Rajasthan schools said their supervisors had instructed them not to speak to the media, so their complaints surface only anonymously.

    Why do repairs not happen even when schools ask for them?

    1. The annual grant cannot fund a repair: One Madhya Pradesh school receives Rs 25,000 a year for miscellaneous works, which is spent on hiring a worker once a month to clean the wash rooms.
    2. Proposals go unanswered for years: That school has sent annual repair proposals for five years without a response, over the same period its building has been in poor condition.
    3. The panchayat fills the gap the department leaves: Its floor, boundary wall and gate were built by the village panchayat after a school alumnus became its head.
    4. Budget is the stated reason given to schools: Rajasthan teachers say district authorities answer requests for more classrooms by citing the absence of budget, while the District Magistrate’s position is that complaints are acted on quickly and vacancies filled regularly.
    5. Attention has moved to a flagship tier: A State School Education Department official says the focus in Madhya Pradesh has been on Sandipani Schools, earlier called CM Rise, and Excellence schools, so small rural schools have struggled for basic infrastructure.

    Who stays in these schools, and who leaves?

    1. The exit has a price: A private school near the Rajasthan cluster costs about Rs 18,000 a year, which a grandparent says rules out sending all his grandchildren to one.
    2. Enrolment collapses where an alternative exists: The Madhya Pradesh middle school runs eight classes for fewer children than a single functioning class would hold, and the school in charge says dominant communities in the village send their children to private schools.
    3. Those who remain are the poorest: Most of the students left at that school are from marginalised communities, and its neglect tracks who is left in it.
    4. Residents read the neglect as targeted: Locals around the Rajasthan schools allege that their requests are ignored because they live in predominantly Muslim areas.
    5. The reason parents give is not academic: The Lucknow parent cites a peaceful atmosphere in which a child can concentrate, not examination results, as what the private school offers.

    Conclusion

    A school counts as functioning in the record when it has a building, a sanctioned staff strength and a maintenance head in the budget. None of those three states whether a child can sit in a lit room, use a toilet, or eat a cooked meal that day. The forward move is to make the release of school funds conditional on periodic physical verification of those conditions, rather than on the return the school files about itself. Until that link exists, the audit is being done by residents with a downloaded checklist while departmental records show nothing wrong.

    Back2Basics: Sandipani Schools, earlier CM Rise Schools

    1. What they are: A Madhya Pradesh government programme creating a tier of well resourced composite schools, running from the pre primary stage to Class 12 on a single campus.
    2. What they provide: Selected schools receive upgraded buildings, laboratories, libraries, digital classrooms and transport for students drawn from surrounding villages.
    3. How they differ from an ordinary school: They are a small, high investment tier rather than a universal upgrade, so a district holds a handful of them alongside its regular government schools.
    4. Why the name changed: The schools were launched as CM Rise Schools and were later renamed Sandipani Vidyalaya.

    [2022, GS2, 15 marks] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.”

  • India’s Higher Education Sector

    Why in the News

    PIB published a Backgrounder on India’s Higher Education Sector. It sets out the sector’s scale, access gains and quality goals.

    Core facts

    1. Scale of expansion: Universities rose from 17 in 1947 to about 1,168 in 2021-22. Colleges rose from 636 to about 45,473 in the same period.
    2. Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER): GER rose from 0.4 in 1950-51 to 28.4 in 2021-22. GER measures enrolment in higher education as a share of the 18 to 23 year age group.
    3. Gender parity: The Gender Parity Index reached 1.01 in 2021-22. A value of 1 means equal female and male enrolment.
    4. State universities carry the load: State Public Universities account for about 81 percent of total enrolment.
    5. Research output: India’s share of global research publications rose from 3.5 percent in 2017 to 5.2 percent in 2024.
    6. Public spending: Tertiary education received about 1.57 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2021.
    7. Data caveat: These are PIB higher education factsheet figures. The current Backgrounder may carry updated data that could not be independently fetched.

    Static Context

    1. National Education Policy 2020: The National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 targets a 50 percent GER by 2035. It is the third national education policy after those of 1968 and 1986.
    2. University Grants Commission: The University Grants Commission (UGC) was set up under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It funds and sets standards for universities.
    3. All India Council for Technical Education: The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regulates technical education. It gained statutory status under the AICTE Act, 1987.
    4. Data and ranking bodies: The All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) is the enrolment data source. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranks institutions.

    Prelims angle

    1. GER hook: The GER definition and the 50 percent by 2035 NEP target are testable facts.
    2. Regulator hook: UGC enactment year 1956 and AICTE statutory year 1987.
    3. Data hook: AISHE is the official higher education statistics survey.
    4. Parity hook: A Gender Parity Index at or above 1 signals equal or higher female enrolment.

    Mains angle

    GS2 (development of the education social sector). A question can ask how India can lift higher education quality and research to internationally competitive levels while raising GER.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12.5 marks] The quality of higher education in India requires major improvements to make it internationally competitive. Do you think that the entry of foreign educational institutions would help improve the quality of higher and technical education in the country? Discuss.”

  • Bihar decides to drop ‘fail’ from Class 10, 12 marksheets

    Why in the News

    Bihar’s Education Department has decided that Class 10 and 12 marksheets issued by the Bihar School Examination Board will no longer carry the word “fail,” replacing it with “Kaushal ke liye patra” (eligible for skills). The state’s Education Minister announced the change at a review meeting, saying the Board would amend its rules and issue instructions, and that a student’s inability to secure expected marks should not be treated as a reflection of talent. The change follows other recent moves in Bihar’s school system aimed at reducing conventional classroom pressure, including a shorter “no bag day” on Saturdays, and comes as the department also plans special preparatory classes for students appearing for supplementary examinations.

    What is changing on Bihar’s Class 10 and 12 marksheets, and why now?

    1. A terminology change, not a grading change: The word “fail” will be replaced with “Kaushal ke liye patra (eligible for skills)” on marksheets, while the underlying pass criteria and examination structure are unchanged.
    2. Mental health is the stated rationale: The Education Minister said the change is meant to protect student morale, framing a failing mark as a gap in results rather than a judgment on a student’s ability.
    3. Supplementary examination support is being added alongside: The department will run special preparatory classes for a month for students appearing in the Matric supplementary examination, aimed at improving their chances of clearing it.
    4. The change follows a wider set of reforms: Bihar has also introduced a shorter “no bag day” on Saturdays, from 9:30 am to 1 pm instead of 9:30 am to 4 pm, to expose students to theatre, music and other creative activities.

    What does Bihar’s own recent school reform pattern reveal?

    1. Reduced classroom time is a recurring theme: The Saturday “no bag day” order, issued under the Chief Minister’s announcement, cuts formal instruction time in favour of non-academic activity, mirroring the marksheet change’s emphasis on reducing pressure over reducing rigour.
    2. Teacher workload is being reallocated, not reduced: Teachers are now required to spend an additional hour after classroom duties on lesson planning, laboratory management and remedial classes, shifting effort toward preparation and remediation.
    3. The announcement doubled as a Teachers’ Day preview: The same review meeting discussed the September 5 Teachers’ Day function, where one teacher per district will receive a state award, tying the marksheet change to a broader push to recognise and support the teaching workforce.

    Challenges to a terminology-only fix for exam-related student distress

    1. Renaming does not remove the underlying selection pressure: A student who does not clear the exam still cannot progress to the next stage or apply for further study, so the anxiety around the outcome persists even if the label softens. Eg. Kerala and several other states have separately debated “no detention” policies without resolving the same underlying pressure around board exam outcomes. Fix. Pair the marksheet change with post-result counselling support and multiple re-attempt windows so students have a genuine path forward, not only a softer label.
    2. Selective terminology change can obscure rather than address failure rates: Removing the word “fail” without addressing why students underperform risks treating the symptom, language, rather than the cause, such as teaching quality or foundational learning gaps. Eg. Bihar has run remedial classes only for the supplementary examination cohort, not as a standing intervention through the academic year. Fix. Extend structured remedial teaching to the full academic year rather than limiting it to a pre-supplementary exam crash course.

    Conclusion

    Bihar’s decision replaces the word “fail” with a skills-oriented label on its board marksheets, framed as a mental health measure, while leaving the underlying pass-fail structure and supplementary examination process intact. Whether the change eases student distress or merely renames it will depend on whether the state follows through with sustained academic support rather than a one-time terminology.

  • Over 13,000 UG seats still up for grabs at Delhi University

    Over 13,000 UG seats still up for grabs at Delhi University

    Why in the News

    The University of Delhi has declared 13,344 undergraduate seats vacant for the 2026-27 intake and invited students to a spot admission round on the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) portal. The vacancies survive multiple rounds of allocation run on Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores. The first round of seat allocation began on 16 July and the academic session commenced on 28 July. The university has separately opened undergraduate admission on Class 12 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) scores instead of CUET results, at a list of colleges that has been expanded three times since 20 August. A single national entrance test built to standardise central university admission is being set aside mid-session by the largest of those universities.

    What is the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS)?

    1. A single centralised admission portal: CSAS is the online platform through which the University of Delhi allocates undergraduate seats across all its colleges from one common applicant pool.
    2. Preference plus score based allocation: An applicant registers once, submits a ranked list of college and programme combinations, and is allotted a seat by merit against those preferences.
    3. Multiple rounds with a spot round at the end: Allocation runs in successive rounds as candidates accept, decline or upgrade. A spot round is opened at the close to fill seats no earlier round could clear.

    Where are the vacant seats concentrated?

    1. Scale against total intake: The university has approximately 71,600 undergraduate seats, so the vacancy stands at 13,344 as of 1 p.m. on Sunday.
    2. Reserved categories carry the largest share: Other Backward Classes-Non-Creamy Layer accounts for 4,133 vacant seats, Scheduled Tribes for 2,476 and Scheduled Castes for 2,038.
    3. General and Economically Weaker Section vacancies: The general category has 2,113 seats available and the Economically Weaker Section 1,791.
    4. Minority quota vacancies: The Sikh minorities category has 566 vacant seats and the Christian minorities category 316.
    5. Language programmes dominate the gap: Most vacant seats sit in BA (Hons) courses in various languages, including Sanskrit, Tamil and Bengali.
    6. North Campus colleges are not insulated: St. Stephen’s College, Hindu College, Hansraj College and Kirori Mal College all carry seats available in BA and B.Sc. (Hons) science subjects, in languages and in the BA programme.

    What does the shift to Class 12 CBSE score based admission signal?

    1. A second entry route opened mid-session: The university introduced undergraduate admission based on Class 12 CBSE scores as an alternative to CUET results, after the session had already commenced.
    2. The eligible college list keeps widening: A list of 11 colleges with vacant seats admitting on CBSE results was released on 20 August, four more colleges were added on 21 August, and the list was expanded again on 23 August.
    3. Established women’s colleges have joined: Indraprastha College for Women and Gargi College commenced admission to the BA (Hons) Sanskrit programme on CBSE results.
    4. The entrance test is not the binding constraint: Seats remain empty at colleges with high demand, so the shortfall reflects programme preference rather than an absence of qualified applicants.
    5. Administration reads it as a scheduling matter: The Dean of Admissions stated that the spot admission round was announced on schedule and that the university expects to fill all remaining seats.

    Challenges to the Common Seat Allocation System

    1. Preference locking traps candidates in low demand programmes: An applicant who ranks a prestigious college above a preferred subject can be allotted a course they will not join, which converts an accepted seat into a later vacancy. Eg. Language honours programmes at North Campus colleges carry the bulk of this year’s vacancies. Fix. Allow a subject first preference stream alongside the college first stream, so a candidate declares which of the two is binding.
    2. Multi-round upgrades leave seats stranded late in the cycle: Every upgrade vacates a seat downstream, and seats vacated in the final rounds arrive after the session has begun. Eg. The academic session commenced on 28 July while allocation continued past 23 August. Fix. Cap the number of upgrade rounds and hold a mandatory physical reporting deadline before the session opens.
    3. Reserved category seats do not migrate: Unfilled Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes seats cannot be converted to other categories, so they persist across rounds. Eg. Other Backward Classes-Non-Creamy Layer alone accounts for 4,133 of this year’s vacancies. Fix. Publish category wise applicant to seat ratios before allocation opens, so candidates can target categories with genuine headroom.
    4. A single test date compresses the eligible pool: Candidates who miss or underperform in one CUET sitting have no second attempt in the same cycle, unlike the multiple sittings offered by other national tests. Eg. The Joint Entrance Examination (Main) is conducted in two sessions a year with the better score counted. Fix. Move CUET to two sittings a year with the higher score taken.
    5. Parallel admission routes weaken the common merit standard: Admitting to the same programme on CUET in one college and on Class 12 board marks in another creates two different entry bars for one degree. Eg. BA (Hons) Sanskrit is now open on CBSE results at colleges where CUET based rounds could not fill it. Fix. Notify in advance the vacancy threshold at which a board score route opens, so the fallback is a published rule rather than a mid-session decision.

    Conclusion

    Delhi University’s undergraduate seat vacancy survived its CUET based rounds, and it has opened both a CSAS spot round and a parallel Class 12 board score route to clear it. The immediate status is that admission continues past the start of the academic session, with the CBSE score based college list still being extended. The next milestone is the close of the spot admission round and the university’s final seat matrix for 2026-27. Whether a single national entrance test can allocate seats in a university of this size within one session remains the open question.

    “[2022, GS2, 15 marks] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.”

  • Ensuring equity amid India’s educational progress

    Ensuring equity amid India’s educational progress

    Why in the News

    The Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+) 2025-26 report records notable progress across India’s school education system. Progress is recorded in gross enrolment, student retention, dropout reduction, teacher availability and educational infrastructure. The same report records that regional and social disparities persist in access, resources, learning opportunities and educational outcomes. Differences in gross enrolment ratios, dropout rates, pupil teacher ratios and infrastructure availability now separate States and social groups from one another rather than separating India from an earlier baseline. What is contested is whether an improving national average can be read as equitable, inclusive and quality education.

    What is the Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+)?

    1. A school level administrative database: UDISE+ is the annual data system that collects information from every recognised school in the country, managed by the Department of School Education and Literacy under the Ministry of Education.
    2. Scale of the 2025-26 round: The report covers 1.47 million schools, 240 million students and 10.2 million teachers.
    3. What it measures: It records enrolment, retention, teacher deployment and school infrastructure, reported down to the district and school level.
    4. Why the numbers matter: The database is the official basis on which school education allocations are made and progress is monitored.

    What is the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER)?

    1. Enrolment measured against an age group: GER is total enrolment at a school stage expressed as a percentage of the population in the official age group for that stage.
    2. Why a value above 100 is possible: Enrolment of under age and over age children pushes the ratio past 100 without meaning that every eligible child of that age is in school.

    What is the Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR)?

    1. Students carried by each teacher: PTR is the number of enrolled students per teacher at a given school stage, so a higher value means each teacher carries a larger class load.

    What is the Gender Parity Index?

    1. Girls’ enrolment measured against boys’: The index is the ratio of female to male enrolment at a school stage, and a value above one shows more girls enrolled than boys.

    What is Aadhaar seeding of student records?

    1. Linking an enrolment record to a unique identity number: Seeding attaches a student’s Aadhaar number to the school record, which is how duplicate and inactive enrolments are removed from the count.

    Which States lead and lag on enrolment records and school profile?

    1. Aadhaar seeding of enrolled students: Andhra Pradesh leads at 99.6 percent, followed by Chandigarh at 99 percent. Meghalaya records the lowest rate at 35 percent against a national average of 90.2 percent.
    2. Share of schools and enrolment: Uttar Pradesh accounts for the highest share of both schools and student enrolment. Meghalaya and Himachal Pradesh have the lowest shares of schools relative to enrolment, which produces higher student school ratios.
    3. Composition of schools by stage: West Bengal records the highest proportion of foundational and preparatory schools at 79 percent and among the lowest secondary schools at 11 percent. Chandigarh is the reverse, with 83 percent secondary schools and 5 percent foundational and preparatory schools.
    4. Average enrolment per school: Chandigarh registers the highest at 1,194, followed by Delhi at 788. Ladakh records the lowest at 64, which marks the spread in school size across the country.

    How is enrolment distributed across social groups?

    1. Regional concentration of social groups: Chandigarh and Delhi have the highest proportions of General category students. Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Ladakh have high proportions of Scheduled Tribe enrolment.
    2. Concentration of Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Classes enrolment: Punjab records one of the highest shares of Scheduled Caste enrolment. Other Backward Classes representation is particularly high in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.
    3. Gross enrolment by social group at the national level: Other Backward Classes record the highest at 49 percent, followed by General at 27 percent, Scheduled Castes at 17 percent and Scheduled Tribes at 10 percent.
    4. Enrolment set against population: Those figures diverge from the corresponding population of each social group, which is where the enrolment gap between groups becomes visible.
    5. Girls ahead of boys on participation: The Gender Parity Index across all school levels shows higher girls’ enrolment and participation than boys in most States and Union Territories.
    6. Minority enrolment: Students from minority communities account for more than 20 percent of enrolment, with Muslims and Parsis among the major minority groups.

    How far apart are States on teacher availability?

    1. The spread tracks population density: PTR registers lowest in Union Territories and highest in densely populated States.
    2. The secondary stage carries the heaviest load: Foundational, preparatory and middle stage ratios are generally lower than the secondary ratio across most States.
    3. The highest secondary ratios: Jharkhand records the highest secondary PTR at 43, followed by Uttar Pradesh, which signifies a heavy workload on each teacher.
    4. The lowest secondary ratios: Sikkim records the lowest secondary PTR at 6, followed by Ladakh.

    What do the stage wise gross enrolment figures show?

    1. Foundational stage: Meghalaya records the highest at 131, followed by Mizoram. Bihar records the lowest at 24, preceded by Uttar Pradesh.
    2. Preparatory stage: Meghalaya again records the highest at 171, followed by Manipur. Gujarat records the lowest at 74, preceded by Bihar.
    3. Middle stage: Chandigarh and Meghalaya record the highest at 118, followed by Delhi. Bihar records the lowest at 70, preceded by Nagaland.
    4. Secondary stage: Chandigarh registers the highest at 109, followed by Goa. Bihar records the lowest at 48, preceded by Nagaland.
    5. The pattern across stages: One large State sits at or near the bottom at every stage, which concentrates the enrolment deficit rather than spreading it evenly across the country.

    What does the dropout data show about retention at each stage?

    1. Why the indicator matters: The dropout rate determines attainment and the transition rate to the next stage of schooling.
    2. Preparatory stage: Bihar accounts for the highest preparatory dropout rate at 7.9 percent, followed by Meghalaya. Delhi, Haryana and Maharashtra do not report dropout at this stage.
    3. Middle stage: Bihar records the highest middle level dropout rate at 9 percent, followed by Uttar Pradesh. Chandigarh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh register no dropouts at this stage.
    4. Secondary stage: Ladakh records the highest secondary dropout rate at 14.8 percent, followed by Karnataka. West Bengal records the lowest at 1.5 percent, preceded by Telangana.

    Why has improved access not produced regular attendance?

    1. A school within reach is now the norm: Access to schooling has improved significantly over the years, and most children now have a school at a suitable distance.
    2. Terrain still decides regularity: Remote, hilly, tribal and border areas still have limited schools and transport facilities, so children there face greater difficulty attending regularly. Eg. Bageshwar district of Uttarakhand, Ganjam and Kandhamal districts of Odisha, Kathua district of Jammu and Kashmir, and Palghar district of Maharashtra.
    3. Social position compounds distance: Children from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minorities and economically poor families face barriers that limit enrolment, attendance and completion together.

    What limits infrastructure and teacher deployment in backward districts?

    1. Infrastructure has improved unevenly: School infrastructure has improved in several areas of the country on drinking water and electricity, and availability still varies across regions.
    2. Rural schools in backward districts lag: Educationally backward districts continue to struggle to provide a learning environment in rural schools compared with urban areas.
    3. One teacher, many roles: Rural and remote schools face teachers handling multiple classes and subjects alongside non teaching responsibilities allotted by the government.

    Which groups remain outside the gains?

    1. Girls’ schooling has advanced without closing retention: Progress in girls’ schooling has not removed the challenge of reducing dropout rates.
    2. The primary to secondary transition is weak: Improving the transition from primary to secondary education remains a stated gap.
    3. Facilities for disabled children fall short: Sufficient and suitable facilities for children with disabilities are not yet in place.
    4. What inclusion requires: Inclusive infrastructure, accessible classrooms and supportive teaching practices are the stated conditions for equitable education.

    Does progress in national averages amount to educational equity?

    1. Improvement and inequality sit in the same dataset: Educational inequality persists across accessibility, infrastructure, teacher availability, digital resources and social inclusion even as the aggregate indicators improve.
    2. The dimensions move together: Addressing these dimensions collectively is treated as essential, since a gain on one indicator does not carry across to the others.
    3. The paradox of progress: Regional and social imbalances continue to influence educational opportunities and learning conditions, so the national average understates what a child in a lagging district faces.

    What would a targeted equity response have to do differently?

    1. Investment directed at deprived regions: Targeted investment in educationally deprived regions is the first measure set out, in line with the National Education Policy 2020.
    2. Teacher deployment as an equity instrument: Deployment is set out as a requirement distinct from recruitment. Eg. The State spread in secondary stage ratios.
    3. Digital infrastructure as a school input: Improved digital infrastructure is named alongside physical infrastructure rather than as an add on.
    4. Dedicated support for disadvantaged groups: Stronger support for disadvantaged social groups, backed by inclusive social and economic policies, is required in addition to general spending.

    Conclusion

    India’s school education system has largely settled the access question and opened the equity question in its place. The 2025-26 data establishes progress at the national level and leaves the distribution unsettled, since the State a child studies in still predicts enrolment, teacher availability and completion. Progress will read as equity only when the distance between the best and the worst performing States narrows on the same indicators that have improved nationally.

    “[2022, GS2, 15 marks] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.”

  • English indigenous or foreign language? Supreme Court for examining constitution

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 said the constitutionality of treating English as a non indigenous language under the three language policy will have to be examined, given the extent of its roots in Indian society. That classification decides which languages compete for a student’s single foreign language slot, so a descriptive label is operating as a rationing rule.

    What is the Three-Language Formula?

    1. What it requires: The three language formula requires a school student to learn three languages, of which at least two must be native Indian languages, described in the policy as Bhartiya Bhashas.
    2. Source and timing: The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is introducing it under the National Education Policy, 2020 from the academic year 2026-27.
    3. Sequence prescribed: The policy begins a child with the mother tongue, moves to another indigenous language, and leaves the third open to being either indigenous or foreign.

    What is the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)?

    1. National Council for Teacher Education: The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is the statutory body that lays down norms for teacher education programmes and recognises the institutions running them. Its rules decide whether a school’s language teacher holds the Bachelor of Education qualification that recognition requires.

    Why is the classification of English as non-indigenous a constitutional question?

    1. The label under scrutiny: The bench said it will have to see whether English can be classified as a non indigenous language or an indigenous one, given the historical perspective of English and the extent of its roots into Indian society.
    2. Objection to the word native: A judge on the bench recorded a serious reservation about the expression native, holding that it carries a very colonial import and that indigenous is the correct term.
    3. Source of the expression: The Additional Solicitor General told the Court that non native is an expression coming from the new education policy, and the bench replied that the framers of the policy ought to have been conscious of the words they chose.
    4. The Board’s position: English is an official language under the Constitution and that status cannot be taken away, it is not treated like a foreign language, and it cannot be treated like a native language either.
    5. The presiding judge’s view: The Chief Justice of India said English could hardly be considered a foreign language.
    6. Why the label is reviewable: A classification that determines which language a student may take up is State action affecting a class of students, which brings it within constitutional review rather than leaving it to policy discretion alone.

    How does the classification restrict the study of other foreign languages?

    1. Two slots pre committed: Mandating at least two native Indian languages leaves a student only one slot for a foreign language.
    2. English absorbs that slot: Nearly all students choose English for the single slot, so French, Japanese and Spanish are effectively pushed out of the main curriculum.
    3. Enrolled students displaced: A large number of students already studying French and Japanese have to switch to a native language.
    4. Employment argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that a second foreign language increases employment opportunities, and that the students affected come from middle and lower income homes.
    5. Textbook design problem: Textbooks placed online under the scheme begin with compound sentences rather than with the first letter, which makes learning an unfamiliar script from them impractical.

    Why is the Class 6 batch at the centre of the dispute?

    1. Cohort singled out: Classes 7 to 9 were exempted under Board guidelines, and the present Class 6 batch was slated to face full implementation.
    2. Terminal assessment: That batch faces a mandatory third language paper in the Class 10 Board examination by 2031.
    3. Reprieve proposed: The bench asked why the Class 6 students could not be given a reprieve from writing the third language paper in the Class 10 examination.
    4. Infrastructure not in place: The Court tied the reprieve to the fact that school infrastructure is still not adequately in place across the various education Boards.
    5. Start earlier instead: The bench held that the scheme should begin in a lower class, which would give students, families and school administrations elbow space to adapt.

    What capacity gaps does the Court identify in implementation?

    1. Choice on paper only: The option is 23 languages in theory, and in practice the range a school can actually offer is far narrower.
    2. Board asymmetry: Only around 4 per cent of schools are under the Central Board of Secondary Education and 96 per cent are under State Boards, so a Board level rule reaches a small share of the school system.
    3. Teacher education compliance: There are asymmetries in compliance with National Council for Teacher Education rules across schools and Boards.
    4. Qualified teacher shortage: There are inadequate numbers of Bachelor of Education qualified teachers for the languages the scheme would add.
    5. Sanskrit as the illustration: The bench asked how many Sanskrit teachers hold a Bachelor of Education qualification, noting that deep subject learning does not substitute for the prescribed teaching qualification.
    6. Compliance regime required: Schools will need an administrative compliance regime for the additional language, which they can absorb only if the change is phased in.

    What has the Court asked the Board to return with?

    1. One time reprieve: Whether a one time reprieve can be given to the current batch of Class 6 students from the third language Board examination.
    2. Human resources: How human resources are to be built to meet the demands of the three language scheme.
    3. Starting class: Whether the scheme should ideally be started in earlier classes rather than at Class 6.
    4. Response undertaken: The Additional Solicitor General said she would place these questions before the experts and appraise the Court.

    Does a mother tongue first policy expand or narrow a student’s choices?

    1. Cognitive case accepted: Early instruction in the mother tongue improves comprehension and retention, which the bench acknowledged as a good policy foundation.
    2. The count is not the constraint: The dispute is not over learning three languages but over the rule that two of them must be indigenous, which fixes the composition rather than the number.
    3. Choice shrinks at the top: Fixing two slots turns the third into the only site of choice, so every additional foreign language competes against English instead of sitting alongside it.
    4. Distributional effect: Students from middle and lower income homes depend on institutional provision for a second foreign language, and better resourced students can purchase it outside the school.
    5. Supply decides the outcome: A student in a school with two language teachers has a choice of two, whatever the 23 language menu states, so teacher supply and not the rule is the binding constraint.

    Challenges to implementing the Three-Language Formula

    1. Teacher cadre does not exist: A third language cannot be staffed from an establishment that was never recruited for it. Eg. Tamil Nadu has not maintained a Hindi teaching cadre in its government schools, so the posts a third language would require have no incumbents to draw on.
    2. State resistance on federal grounds: School education sits on the Concurrent List and States have rejected the formula as imposition. Eg. Tamil Nadu has followed a two language policy since 1968 and has declined central school scheme agreements that carry the three language requirement.
    3. Persistent non implementation: The formula has been official policy for six decades without uniform adoption. Eg. It was recommended by the Kothari Commission and adopted in the National Policy on Education, 1968, and no decade since has seen it implemented across all States.
    4. Migration breaks continuity: A child who moves between States loses the second indigenous language on transfer. Eg. A student learning Marathi in Maharashtra who relocates to West Bengal has to restart a new regional language at the same class level.
    5. Assessment weight against learning time: A Board paper in a language begun at Class 6 carries the same weight as papers in subjects taught from Class 1. Eg. The current Class 6 batch faces a third language paper in the 2031 Class 10 examination after five years of instruction.
    6. Material for less taught languages: Beginner grade teaching material is thin for classical and less taught languages. Eg. Textbooks placed online under the scheme open with compound sentences, which suits a scholarly reader rather than a Class 6 beginner.
    7. Private school offer disrupted: Schools that market a second foreign language lose that offer when the slot is taken. Eg. Private schools offering French, German and Japanese from Class 6 draw fee paying enrolment on that basis.

    Conclusion

    The dispute has moved from how many languages a school child must learn to who decides that English is not one of India’s own. The Court has said the constitutionality of classifying English as non indigenous will have to be examined, and has asked the Board to return on a one time reprieve for the Class 6 batch, on building teacher capacity, and on shifting the scheme to earlier classes. The Board has undertaken to place these questions before its experts, so the policy stands notified for 2026-27 with its core classification still under judicial scrutiny.

    “[2020, GS2, 15] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.”

  • [20th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: The IISERs have a leadership problem

    Question (2014, GS2): “Should the premier institutes like IITs/IIMs be allowed to retain premier status, allowed more academic independence in designing courses and also decide mode/criteria of selection of students? Discuss in light of the growing challenges.
    Linkage: This question directly addresses the central conflict in your prompt: the struggle of premier national science and technology institutes to maintain their academic independence and elite status when confronted with structural and administrative constraints.

    Mentor Comment

    Several of the seven Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research are operating under temporary, divided or incomplete leadership, with chairpersons holding simultaneous charge of two or three other institutions and nominated positions for eminent scientists lying vacant. The institutions were created to give students an intellectually vibrant research environment and prize autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, which sits against a statutory Board structure dominated by government officials and nominees.

    What are the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research?

    1. Why they were created: The Indian government created the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) to offer students an intellectually vibrant research environment and to bring them into research at a relatively early stage by the standards of the Indian system.
    2. What they prize: They treat autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, specifically the ability of scientists to decide which questions are worth pursuing and with what resources, and top down control is inimical to that vision.
    3. Their statutory basis: They were brought within the framework of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. How many there are: Seven IISERs are in operation, each with its own Board of Governors.

    How are IISER Boards of Governors constituted?

    1. The statutory requirement: The 2007 Act requires each IISER to have a Board of Governors that includes senior government officials and other government nominees.
    2. Named ex officio positions: The IISER statutes specify, among others, the secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru.
    3. The accountability rationale: Publicly funded science should be publicly accountable, which is the justification for the government presence on the Boards.
    4. Where the rationale runs out: Suboptimal appointments or outright vacancies are objectionable because they lead to policy paralysis at best, which is a failure of accountability rather than an exercise of it.

    What does the current composition of the seven Boards show?

    1. The IISc director’s spread: The director of the Indian Institute of Science is an ex officio member of most IISERs.
    2. IISER Pune: The chair of its Board is also the chairperson of the Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
    3. IISER Berhampur: Its Board chair was given additional charge while also chairing the Board of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati. Nominated positions on the same Board lie vacant, including one for an Indian Institute of Technology director and two for eminent scientists.
    4. IISER Bhopal: Its current director is listed as director in charge, after the previous director left to join NITI Aayog in June.
    5. IISER Thiruvananthapuram: Its chairperson simultaneously chairs the Boards of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam and the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kurnool.
    6. The cumulative position: Interim appointments are routine and vacancies arise during transitions, and ex officio positions change when officials move between posts, but taken together several IISERs are operating under temporary or incomplete leadership.

    Who is leading India’s basic science institutions?

    1. IISER Pune’s chairperson: A retired Indian Administrative Service officer whose educational background is in commerce and journalism.
    2. IISER Pune’s director: A chemical engineer by training, whereas the IISERs have little focus on engineering.
    3. IISER Thiruvananthapuram’s chairperson: A surgeon.
    4. IISER Tirupati’s chairperson: A chemical engineer and the co founder of an industrial group.
    5. IISER Berhampur’s chairperson: An executive in the footwear industry.
    6. The measurable outcome: Going by awards, fellowships or global achievement and recognition, there are few outstanding scientists in positions of authority on the IISER Boards today.

    Why does the professional background of a chairperson matter for a basic science institution?

    1. There is no legal bar: No rule requires that the chairperson of a scientific institution must be a scientist.
    2. Why it matters regardless: It bears on each institution’s credibility and on its vision, both of which rest on who is seen to be setting the research direction.
    3. What the Boards do gain from outsiders: Expertise in administration, industry, finance and public policy is genuinely useful to a Board.
    4. What the case for scientists rests on: Institutions focused on basic science should draw their leadership from the scientific community, where many people combine distinguished research careers with substantial experience in running academic and research organisations.
    5. The practice that was dropped: The government had earlier appointed the finest scientists to the IISERs’ helm before discontinuing the practice.
    6. The question that actually arises: It is not whether the current leaders are competent, it is why India’s many accomplished scientists are not being asked to lead institutions whose central purpose is basic science.

    How does divided and interim leadership weaken institutional autonomy?

    1. Attention divided across institutions: Leaders whose attention is already split between two or three institutions cannot supply sustained direction to any one of them.
    2. Control shifting away from scientists: With outsiders and divided attention at the top, scientists have less control over decisions that affect their own work.
    3. Rotation instead of recruitment: The availability of a research cadre calls into question the practice of moving the same people between institutions rather than recruiting from the scientific community.
    4. Administration falling behind: People familiar with the IISERs’ functioning describe an administration losing its ability to keep up with students’ needs in respect of a good education in basic science.
    5. The internal assessment: A senior scientist at one of the IISERs described the position as one in which there is no vision or imagination and no sense of leadership propelling the institution towards its core goals of carrying out high quality frontier research in and teaching basic science at an international level.
    6. The powers that go unused: By design, the directors and the Board hold the power to institute positive changes, so the deficit is one of direction rather than of authority.

    Challenges to institutional autonomy in India’s basic science institutions

    1. Lagging decline masked by reputation: An institution whose governance has begun to decline can remain scientifically productive for years as long as the people who built its reputation remain and the institutional label is still valuable, which delays any corrective response. e.g. the IISERs continue to attract strong entrants through the joint admission route while several Boards run without full leadership.
    2. Concentration of authority: Weak collegial governance shifts decisions towards a small group at the top, reducing faculty participation in academic direction. e.g. the flagging of a risk of concentration of authority as a consequence of the IISERs’ present leadership arrangements.
    3. Risk averse research culture: Where leadership lacks a research background, funding and hiring decisions favour safe incremental work over frontier problems. e.g. the expectation of an increasingly risk averse institutional culture as the cumulative effect of the IISERs’ governance decline.
    4. Vacancies in nominated positions: Seats reserved for eminent scientists and institute directors go unfilled, removing the very expertise the statute intended the Board to carry. e.g. the IISER Berhampur Board, with one Indian Institute of Technology director position and two eminent scientist positions vacant.
    5. Interim leadership without a mandate: A director in charge cannot commit an institution to long horizon research investments. e.g. IISER Bhopal, run by a director in charge after the previous director left for NITI Aayog in June.
    6. Government nominee dominance: The statutory requirement of senior officials and nominees on the Board makes institutional direction dependent on the postings cycle of the civil service. e.g. the ex officio membership of the secretary of higher education on IISER Boards under the 2007 Act statutes.
    7. Underfunding of basic research: India’s gross expenditure on research and development remains below one per cent of gross domestic product, so institutional autonomy is further constrained by dependence on annual government grants. e.g. the persistent share of roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product against the two per cent and above spent by comparable research economies.
    8. Faculty attrition to better resourced systems: Weak governance and uncertain research support push early career scientists towards positions abroad or in the private sector. e.g. the reliance of schemes such as Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami fellowships on reversing exactly this outflow.

    Conclusion

    The IISERs were created on the premise that scientists deciding their own research questions produces better science than top down direction, and the statutory Board structure was the accountability counterweight to that autonomy. The counterweight has become the whole of it, with chairpersons drawn from outside the scientific community, ex officio members spread across several institutions, and seats reserved for eminent scientists left vacant. Restoring the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists to the helm, and filling the nominated positions the statutes already provide, requires no change in the law.

    Basic Scientific Research in India

    1. What it covers: Basic research is investigation directed at understanding fundamental phenomena without a specified application, distinguished from applied research and from experimental development.
    2. Institutional spread: It is conducted through the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories, the Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space institutions, the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, the Indian Institute of Science, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the central universities.
    3. Scale of national spending: India’s gross expenditure on research and development stands at roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product, against about two per cent or more in most comparable research economies.
    4. Composition of that spending: The government accounts for the larger share of research spending in India, whereas in most leading research economies the private sector accounts for the bulk of it.
    5. Global standing on output: India ranks among the top three countries in the world by annual volume of scientific publications, and its citation impact remains below that publication rank.
    6. The IISER model: The IISERs were designed as a distinct category from the Indian Institutes of Technology, combining a five year integrated science programme with a research faculty, so that undergraduates enter laboratories early.
    7. The funding reform: The Anusandhan National Research Foundation, established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023, is intended to fund research across universities and colleges, with a substantial share of its corpus expected from non government sources.

    Government Initiatives for Science Education and Research

    1. Anusandhan National Research Foundation: Established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023 as the apex body for seeding, growing and promoting research across the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, environmental and earth sciences, health and agriculture, with a mandate to fund university and college research.
    2. INSPIRE: The Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research programme of the Department of Science and Technology offers scholarships to school students, undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships in the basic and natural sciences, and faculty fellowships.
    3. Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana: A fellowship programme to identify and support students with an aptitude for research careers in the basic sciences, since merged into the INSPIRE stream.
    4. Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami Re entry Fellowships: Offered by the Science and Engineering Research Board and the Department of Biotechnology respectively to bring Indian scientists working abroad back into Indian institutions.
    5. PM Research Fellowship: Provides doctoral fellowships at institutions of national importance with an enhanced stipend and a research grant, to retain top undergraduates within the domestic research system.
    6. National Research Professorship and J.C. Bose Fellowship: Recognise and support distinguished scientists to continue active research beyond conventional retirement.
    7. Vigyan Jyoti and Women in Science and Engineering KIRAN: Target the participation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and research careers.

    Key Facts about the IISERs

    1. Number and locations: Seven institutes, at Kolkata, Pune, Mohali, Bhopal, Thiruvananthapuram, Tirupati and Berhampur.
    2. Year of first establishment: The first two, at Kolkata and Pune, were established in 2006, followed by Mohali in 2007, Bhopal and Thiruvananthapuram in 2008, Tirupati in 2015 and Berhampur in 2016.
    3. Statutory status: They are Institutes of National Importance under the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. Administering ministry: The Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education.
    5. Flagship programme: A five year BS-MS dual degree in the basic sciences, with admission through the IISER Aptitude Test and other channels.
    6. Governance structure: A Board of Governors chaired by a chairperson, with a director as the chief executive, and a Senate for academic matters.
    7. Named ex officio Board members: The secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, among others.

    Back2Basics: National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007

    1. What it is: A central Act that declares certain institutions to be Institutes of National Importance and provides for their incorporation, governance and funding.
    2. Enacted: 2007, originally covering the National Institutes of Technology, and later extended to the IISERs and to the Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology.
    3. What Institute of National Importance status confers: Autonomy to award its own degrees, direct central funding, and exclusion from the University Grants Commission’s affiliation framework.
    4. Governance it prescribes: Each institute has a Board of Governors as the principal executive body, a Senate for academic decisions, a chairperson, a director and a registrar.
    5. Composition requirement: The Board must include senior government officials and other government nominees, which is the provision that places the secretary of higher education and the Indian Institute of Science director on IISER Boards through the institute statutes.
    6. The Council: The Act also creates a Council for the institutes it covers, chaired by the Union Minister in charge, to coordinate across them.
    7. Why it governs this item: It is the statutory source of both the IISERs’ autonomy and the government dominated Board structure that the present appointments have made the operative feature.

    Way Forward

    1. Restore scientist leadership at the helm: Reviving the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists as chairpersons and directors requires no amendment to the 2007 Act, only a change in the selection practice.
    2. Fill the vacant nominated seats: Appointing to the eminent scientist and institute director positions already provided in the statutes restores the scientific expertise the Board structure was designed to carry.
    3. Bar simultaneous multiple chairmanships: A rule against holding the chair of more than one Institute of National Importance would end the divided attention that leaves several IISERs without sustained direction.
    4. Time bound filling of directorships: A fixed outer limit on how long an institute may run under a director in charge would prevent interim leadership becoming the standing arrangement.
    5. Publish selection criteria and search process: A transparent search committee process, with published criteria for research standing and institution building experience, would make appointments contestable on merit.
    6. Build a leadership pipeline from the research cadre: Structured administrative training for mid career scientists would widen the pool beyond the same individuals rotated between institutions.
    7. Strengthen Senate authority over academic direction: Vesting curriculum, faculty recruitment and research priorities firmly with the Senate would insulate scientific decisions from Board level turnover.
    8. Raise and stabilise research funding: Multi year block grants through the Anusandhan National Research Foundation would reduce the dependence on annual allocations that constrains long horizon research.

  • [19th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Education must change to account for AI

    Question (2023, GS3): “Introduce the concept of Artificial Intelligence (AI). How does AI help clinical diagnosis? Do you perceive any threat to privacy of the individual in the use of AI in healthcare?
    Linkage: This is the foundational question on AI awareness. Adapting education to AI requires first understanding its core concepts and cross-sectoral applications, which are now being integrated into school and higher education curricula.

    Mentor Comment:

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping work in the sectors where India holds comparative advantage, including generic drugs, biosimilars and vaccine manufacture, and will eliminate a large share of entry level positions while leaving deep domain expertise in demand. This exposes a conflict between an education system built to load ever more content before entry into the workforce and an economy that now requires selection, synthesis, judgement and adaptation instead.

    What is the National Education Policy’s four year undergraduate structure?

    1. What it is: The National Education Policy, 2020 replaced the three year undergraduate degree with a flexible four year undergraduate programme offering multiple entry and exit points.
    2. Exit ladder: A certificate after one year, a diploma after two years, a bachelor’s degree after three years and a bachelor’s degree with research after four years.
    3. The research pathway: The fourth year is designed as a research pathway in which a student undertakes a supervised project rather than additional taught coursework.
    4. Credit portability: Credits earned at each exit point are deposited in the Academic Bank of Credits, allowing a student to re-enter and complete the degree later.
    5. Why it matters here: The four year structure with a research final year is the closest institutional equivalent to apprenticeship that the system already possesses.

    What is vibe coding?

    1. What it is: Vibe coding is the practice of producing working software by describing the desired outcome in natural language to an AI system, which generates and iterates on the code, rather than by writing the code line by line.
    2. Effect on work: It removes the routine coding task that has historically been the entry level rung in software employment.

    What are biosimilars?

    1. What they are: Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to an already approved reference biologic, with no clinically meaningful difference in safety, purity or potency.
    2. Why they differ from generics: A biosimilar is produced in living cells and cannot be copied exactly, so approval requires comparative analytical, non clinical and clinical evidence rather than simple bioequivalence.

    What is an automated fill finish line?

    1. What it is: A fill finish line is the final stage of pharmaceutical manufacture in which the bulk drug substance is filled into vials or syringes, stoppered, sealed, inspected and labelled under sterile conditions.
    2. Effect of automation: Robotic and isolator based fill finish removes human presence from the sterile core, which raises throughput and sterility assurance while eliminating operator roles.

    How is AI changing the nature of work itself?

    1. Change is rapid and unpredictable: The nature of work is changing at every level, and the direction of that change cannot be forecast with confidence.
    2. Routine work is the first casualty: Vibe coding threatens to render much routine coding obsolete, which removes the task that entry level employees have traditionally performed.
    3. Important work also becomes routine: With wisely configured agents and other tools, even important work can be made routine, so the change is not confined to low skill tasks.
    4. Employment shifts to oversight: Fewer employees remain, and their function becomes careful oversight of systems rather than execution of the task.
    5. No settled timeline: Assessments of when superintelligence arrives range from a few years to many years, so institutions cannot plan against a fixed date.

    How will AI reshape the sectors of Indian strength?

    1. Generic drugs and biosimilars: AI is reshaping molecule screening and formulation in generic drugs and biosimilars.
    2. Synthesis and quality control: Robotics and machine vision will increasingly handle synthesis and quality control in the same sectors.
    3. Vaccine design: AI can help design antigens and predict immune responses, changing the research stage of vaccine development.
    4. Vaccine manufacture: Robotic bioreactors, automated fill finish lines and AI managed logistics will make production faster, cleaner and more precise.
    5. Corporate adaptation is assumed: Indian industry will pivot to meet these changes and companies may survive and prosper, so the disruption falls on employment rather than on firms.

    Why does the disappearance of entry level jobs create a skills paradox?

    1. Two requirements point in opposite directions: Employers will still need people with deep domain expertise, and the entry level positions through which such expertise was historically acquired will disappear.
    2. Expertise cannot be front loaded: Deep domain expertise cannot be acquired at the point of entry, so it cannot simply be added to a degree programme as more coursework.
    3. Employee profiles change, not employer demand: Companies will prosper while their employee profiles change dramatically, so the market signal to students is ambiguous rather than absent.
    4. Oversight requires the expertise it displaces: The remaining employees must supervise systems whose outputs only an expert can evaluate, so the skill required is higher precisely where the training ladder has been removed.
    5. The gap is institutional, not individual: No individual can resolve a missing apprenticeship rung by studying harder, which is why the response has to come from the design of education.

    Why has the strategy of extending years of education run out of road?

    1. The historical pattern: Earlier technological revolutions were met by extending education, from basic literacy to primary school, then high school, then college, and increasingly professional master’s degrees.
    2. What each transition demanded: Every transition asked people to acquire and retain more knowledge before entering the workforce.
    3. Why the pattern breaks now: As AI systems advance, the comparative advantage no longer lies in humans storing ever more information in their heads.
    4. What replaces storage: The requirement is to know what must be understood deeply, what can be retrieved when needed, and how to learn quickly in unfamiliar situations.
    5. Adding material makes it worse: A future that cannot be predicted cannot be prepared for by adding ever more material to the curriculum.

    What kind of rigour must replace content coverage?

    1. Two apparently contradictory tasks: Education must thin out what it teaches while providing far more opportunities to learn on the fly.
    2. Not less rigour: The objective is a different kind of rigour rather than a reduction of it.
    3. The four capacities named: That rigour consists of selection, synthesis, judgement and adaptation.
    4. How it is built: Students need repeated experience of confronting problems whose answers are not in the syllabus, finding the relevant knowledge and applying it with judgement.
    5. The system’s starting condition: India’s higher education system contains isolated pockets of excellence embedded in a large undifferentiated mass that is difficult to reform as a whole.

    How can the four year undergraduate structure deliver apprenticeship at scale?

    1. The ideal model and its limit: The ideal way to train an expert is apprenticeship, one student working closely with one teacher or practitioner, and that model cannot be provided at scale at present.
    2. The available substitute: The National Education Policy’s four year undergraduate structure already provides a research pathway in the final year, the closest institutional equivalent available.
    3. What blocks it in practice: Residual coursework crowds out the immersion the policy intends, so the final year reverts to taught classes.
    4. The proposed fix: Universities should allow any remaining essential coursework to be completed online, freeing the year for immersion.
    5. Where students should be placed: Students should spend that year embedded in industry, university laboratories or national laboratories.
    6. What the placement teaches: Working alongside people solving real problems lets students encounter uncertainty and learn to acquire knowledge as it becomes necessary.

    Challenges to reorienting education for AI

    1. Faculty shortage and capacity: Immersion requires supervisors who themselves work on live problems, and Indian universities carry large vacancies in teaching posts, e.g. central universities have reported vacancy levels around one third of sanctioned teaching positions.
    2. Absence of industry placement capacity: There are not enough laboratories and firms willing to host a full cohort for a year, e.g. the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme has consistently engaged far fewer apprentices than its annual targets.
    3. Regulatory rigidity on credits: University statutes tie degrees to classroom contact hours, which blocks substitution of a year of placement for taught credits, e.g. many State universities still require minimum attendance percentages that a workplace year cannot satisfy.
    4. Assessment mismatch: Examination systems reward recall, which is the exact capacity AI has made least valuable, e.g. the majority of Indian undergraduate examinations remain terminal written papers rather than project defences.
    5. Digital access inequality: Moving residual coursework online assumes reliable connectivity and devices, which a large share of students lack, e.g. only about 57 percent of women have independent internet access against 72 percent of men.
    6. Employability and credential signalling: Employers screen on degree names and marks rather than on demonstrated judgement, so students resist a less legible qualification, e.g. campus recruitment for information technology services has long been anchored to aggregate marks thresholds.
    7. Uneven institutional quality: Reform designed for research capable institutions cannot be transplanted into colleges with no research infrastructure, e.g. a large majority of Indian undergraduate students study in affiliated colleges rather than in universities.
    8. Financing the transition: Placement years, laboratory access and supervision cost money that public institutions do not currently receive, e.g. public expenditure on education remains near 4.6 percent of gross domestic product against the National Education Policy’s 6 percent target.

    Conclusion

    The core problem is not that AI will destroy work but that it removes the entry level rung through which deep expertise was formed, while continuing to demand that expertise. Adding more content to the curriculum cannot answer this, and the response is to thin the syllabus and use the National Education Policy’s four year structure to place students inside industry and laboratories for a full year. That requires moving residual coursework online and treating immersion, not coursework, as the final year’s substance.