The debate over who should become a Vice-Chancellor of a university in India has once again come into sharp focus. At the heart of the issue is a simple but fundamental question: should one uniform eligibility formula be applied to every university, irrespective of its character, mandate and academic domain? My answer is clear: no. A university is not merely an institution that awards degrees. It is an organisation that requires academic vision, administrative competence, institutional discipline, financial prudence, leadership and, increasingly, deep knowledge of the domain in which it operates. To assume that one particular academic career path automatically equips a person with all these qualities is neither logical nor necessarily in the larger interest of higher education. Historically, the appointment framework for Vice-Chancellors was not always confined in practice to the modern conception of a career academic. Senior administrators and persons with substantial administrative experience have, at different times and under different university and State frameworks, occupied such positions. However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the UGC universally prescribed “FPL-14 and above” as an all-India eligibility criterion for Vice-Chancellors. What can be firmly established is that the UGC Regulations, 2010 introduced a significantly more academic eligibility framework. Clause 7.3.0 provided that a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with at least ten years of experience as a Professor in a university system, or ten years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation, coupled with demonstrated academic leadership. The 2018 Regulations substantially retained this framework.
The intention behind such a provision is understandable. Universities are centres of learning and research, and academic credibility matters. But an important distinction needs to be made: academic eligibility and institutional leadership are not synonymous. Ten years as a Professor may establish substantial academic experience, but it cannot, by itself, establish that a person possesses all the qualities necessary to lead a complex university. There is no automatic conversion of professorial experience into administrative competence. Teaching, research and institutional governance are related, but they are not identical functions.
This is where a one-size-fits-all eligibility framework becomes difficult to justify. Engineering, medical, law, skill and sports universities have distinct mandates and require leadership suited to their respective fields. While academic credentials remain important, domain knowledge, professional experience and administrative competence are equally essential.
This is not an argument against professors. India has outstanding academics and researchers, but academic qualifications alone cannot guarantee administrative ability or the quality of research. Concerns about commercialised credentials, ghostwriting and unethical research assistance also highlight the need to assess the credibility and substance of academic achievements. A university leader must bring both academic integrity and the competence to manage the institution effectively.
The law, however, must be settled before individuals are judged. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the binding nature of applicable UGC regulations in Vice-Chancellor appointments. In its January 2026 judgment in S Mohan v Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribe a mandatory framework and that conflicting State or institutional provisions cannot simply dilute those standards. Earlier, in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v State of Gujarat, the Court had gone further and quashed a Vice-Chancellor appointment found contrary to the applicable UGC framework.
These judgments make one thing abundantly clear: the issue cannot be reduced to personal preference. A person does not become a Vice-Chancellor merely because he or she wishes to become one. A person is appointed under a statutory framework, through a prescribed process and by the competent authority. Therefore, if there is dissatisfaction with the eligibility framework, the first responsibility lies with the legislature, the Government and the regulatory authorities to clarify and reform that framework. The law must be settled before the individual is condemned for following the law.
The UGC’s 2025 draft regulations recognised this larger problem to some extent. They proposed expanding the pool of eligible candidates to include individuals with at least ten years of senior-level experience in industry, public administration or public policy, subject to a demonstrated record of academic or scholarly contribution. The proposal itself reflects an important realisation: leadership of a university may require expertise beyond the traditional academic hierarchy. However, because the 2025 document was a draft, it should not be treated as the present governing rule.
India should now move towards a more nuanced system. Instead of asking merely, “Has this person been a Professor for ten years?”, we should ask: What kind of university is this, what is its mandate, and what kind of leadership does that mandate require? Governments and regulators should consult States, domain experts, universities, professional bodies and industry before finalising a uniform framework. Domain-specific eligibility should be considered wherever the character of the university makes it necessary. This does not mean lowering standards. It means redefining standards intelligently. A Vice-Chancellor must possess integrity, institutional commitment, intellectual credibility and administrative ability. But discipline, dynamism, command, decision-making, financial understanding, crisis management and knowledge of the particular sector are equally important. A person leading a skill university should understand industry. A person leading a sports university should understand sport. A person leading a technological university should understand technology. These qualities cannot simply be assumed because someone has spent ten years in a professorial chair.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Professors should become Vice-Chancellors, but whether a Professor-only template should apply to every university. As skill, sports and specialised universities in fields such as mass communication, digital media and design reshape higher education, their leaders must be assessed according to their institutions’ distinct needs.
India does not need weaker standards for Vice-Chancellors. It needs smarter standards. A degree should establish academic credibility; experience should establish competence; and the nature of the university should determine the kind of leadership it requires. The future of Indian higher education cannot be governed by the assumption that one formula fits every university. It is time to stop asking only whether a person has been a Professor for ten years-and start asking whether that person is genuinely capable of leading the university that the nation has entrusted to him or her.
The writer is a former Director General of Police, Uttarakhand; Views presented are personal.