GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
 STRUCTURE
 

6.1 Council of IITs

6.1.1 Erosion of Autonomy

A common perception of all IITs is one of interference with their autonomy by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. A Chairman of the Board of Governors of IIT in his address to a convocation made the specific point that autonomy both in academics as well as in governance for the IITs is a must. At the same time many felt that it was the autonomy the IITs enjoyed which enabled them to function in a manner that promoted excellence. Therefore, the objective situation in this regard required to be examined.

The IIT Act and Statutes clearly specify the respective roles of the Council of the IITs, the Boards of the Governors of the IITs, their Senates and the duties and responsibilities of the Director.

We noted that the Council of Indian Institutes of Technology, which coordinates all the IITs, is a broad based body with the Union Human Resource Development Minister as its Chairman and an Officer of the Ministry of Human Resource Development as its Secretary. The Chairmen and Directors of all the IITs are there along with the representatives of the Central Government, Parliament, Indian Institute of Science, UGC and others. Even though the IITs are largely funded by the Central Government there is no formal representation of the Central Government on the Board of Governors of any IIT. Therefore, the Board is free from direct interference by the Government of India. Government itself is represented in a minor way on the Council whereas all the IITs and Academia put together have a major representation. Why then is this feeling of interference by the Government?

Evidences presented to us indicated that certain actions taken by the Ministry do make these Institutes feel that the Ministry is interfering in their domain of delegated authority. Some instances brought before us are:

-Not holding the Council meetings regularly. (There was no meeting held between June 1983 and February 1985). The bureaucracy in the Ministry actually shapes the decisions and gets it approved by the Minister-as Council's Chairman- without wide participation and discussion by the IITs, and orders are then issued to the IITs.

- The Institutes are bound by many rules and regulations and the IITs stated that Ministry's permission seems to be an absolute necessity for many things such as:

* whether a faculty member can receive a grant from a foreign academic foundation;

* whether a foreign scientist can visit a Department" or

* whether a faculty member can go abroad.

- There was a report on the case of a student who had done so badly that he had to be sent out of the Institute. He was given an extra chance before he was sent out of the Institute. The Ministry brought pressure on the Institute and the boy had to be admitted after one year. This boy was an SC/ST student but well educated in a good school; his father being an officer of the Cabinet Secretariat, influence was brought to bear on the Ministry.

- Similarly, in the case of an Indian national residing abroad who could not qualify in the Joint Entrance Examination, pressure was brought upon the Director of an IIT by the Ministry to admit him.

- In the name of commonality between the IITs attempt is made to offset the advantages of the onerational autonomy and the individual character of the IIT which is considered to be a major source of academic strength.

- Decisions taken by the Visitor on the reports of the Review Committee or other committees are in fact formulated by the Ministry who are free not to implement a recommendation, if they so choose.

80

- Inability of the local administration, hamstrung by financial constraints, to resist bureaucratic interference from the Ministry.

- Influence by Members of Parliament writing to the Minister regarding the reinstatement of a student or pleading the case of an employee.

- Favouring some in the IITs who are close to the officials in the Ministry.

-Alleged misuse and control of official transport.

On the other hand the absolute freedom enjoyed by the respective Boards of Governors enables a Board of Governors decide in a particular way which affects the morale of other IITs creating problems for them and financial commitment for the Government. There was thus a need to redefine that the autonomy of IIT cannot be absolute. It has to be moderated by a common body such as the Council of the IITs where each IIT is represented, in order that a commonality of commitment is arrived at. Some instances where the decision of one IIT brought difficulties to other IITs are:

- An IIT gave a B.Tech. (Arts) degree to students who could not complete the level of full programme satisfactorily.

- One IIT unilaterally revised upward the scale of pay of the Registrar.

- One IIT implemented on their own retrospective promotions antedating (for fixing of salary) the benefits accruing to the employees to the detriment of the employees of other IITs.

- An IIT paid higher value of scholarships to Postgraduates resulting in strikes taking place in other IITs over this issue.

- An IIT implemented a Personal Promotion Scheme long before the IIT Council so decided.

- An IIT promoted wholesale non-faculty employees on the plea of the merit-promotion etc.

- Erroneous notions about powers had also given rise to a feeling of erosion of autonomy. For example the IIT Council alone has the power and not the Senates for fixing the duration of courses. When the duration of undergraduate courses was reduced to four from five years after due exchange of ideas, there was complaint by Senates of some IITs that their autonomy has been eroded. So also was the case of reducing the duration of PG course to three semesters. In all these cases, there was adequate participation by Senates of IITs but authority for decision- making was with the Council.

The formal position is that, if in any IIT, there are serious aberrations government can only raise the matter with the Visitor for appointment of a Committee whose report is examined by the government, and the order of the Visitor obtained for communication to the IIT.

The real problem of autonomy in the IIT as in any other autonomous institution funded by government, is the rigidity of the financial rules. In all autonomous bodies there is provision for them to frame their own rules. But such rules are subject to government approval and the requirements of the government audit. So ultimately such institutions adopt the government financial rules as the safest course.

The Education Commission (1974) while dealing with University autonomy clearly stated:

"The proper sphere of University autonomy lies principally in three fields:

-the selection of students;

-the appointment and promotion of teachers;

-the determination of courses of study, methods of teaching, and the selection of areas and problems of research".

They further said

"While universities must have this autonomy, it should be interpreted in the larger context of their obligation and responsibility to the nation and to mankind as a whole. For instance, the national need for trained manpower has implications for the teaching functions of the universities and similarly decisions about research which, in a way must be taken primarily by the universities, cannot be taken in isolation from the economic and social needs of the country which must influence them in a large measure. Such decisions are national decisions

81

in which the competing claims of different sectors of the Society must be weighed against one another and in which long range programmes must be balanced against immediate needs. It is apparent that the conduct of university affairs cannot be left solely to the academics; their relationship to social needs requires the admission of non-academic persons within the machinery of their government. The universities have thus to share their decisions with lay agencies or authorities outside the system."

It would appear that sometimes the IITs have been disturbed by letters from the Members of Parliament or other references made in connection with queries to assist the Minister to dispose of complaints. On the other hand many employees felt that the Directors of the IITs do not use their autonomy. It was alleged that the Directors either refer the files to the Chairman or to the Ministry particularly in matters concerning the employees, and that the ideas presented by employees are often rejected. Here again we would quote the Education Commission's observations:

"In the governance of a University, the principle that good ideas often originate at the lower levels of the hierarchy must be recognised and respected. The tendency to attach importance to ideas and proposals merely because they emanate from persons who happen to hold important positions is unhealthy and particularly out of place in a university where they must be judged objectively and on their intrinsic merit. As Sir Eric Ashby has observed: 'This principle of upward flow is vital to the efficient administration of a University and for the survival of autonomy and self-government.... Not all Professors consult their Lecturers before decisions are taken as scrupulously as they themselves expect to be consulted by the lay governors in similar circumstances. As faculty boards become larger, there is a temptation for an oligarchy of Senior Professors to take over the responsibilities of government on behalf of their more junior colleagues. That way danger lies, for any weakening of the principle of self-government within the academic body makes it harder to preserve selfgovernment within the University as a whole and correspondingly harder to maintain the autonomy of the University in the modern democratic States"'.

There was also a suggestion made that the Ministry should not advise the Director on issues which lie within his powers to decide. In our opinion such a general fiat is not a valid proposition because IITs have a relationship with the Ministry and the relationship extends through the Ministry to the Parliament. There will be thus some matters or issues which require consultation with the Ministry or by the Ministry with the IITs. IITs cannot in all matters decide on their own. For instance they cannot decide in isolation how much they can spend without knowing what money is available as a government grant. It is not only the Ministry that is concerned but often their programmes of investment, concerns the Planning Commission and the Parliament where budgets have to be voted. Therefore, autonomy cannot be said to have been violated when references of this kind are made to and fro.

It must be recognised that educational policy and planning are intimately linked with and determined by what society pursues. To a great extent educational policies or other policies accepted by the Parliament such as Science Policy Resolution and Technology Policy have a close bearing on the working of the IITs. By and large IITs are free from political interference. IITs are not completely divorced from the society. They are being watched by the Parliament where they are also being protected by the Union Minister of Human Resource Development. The Council of IITs have three representatives on it elected by the Parliament. IITs are fortunate in having a healthy structure in the form of the Council of the IITs and the political support through its Chairman who is a Minister. The Council is a good agency where healthy relationship exists and which permits IITs to extend the political will of the Nation and the Parliament. IITs themselves owe their genesis to the Parliament. We do not think that IIT should remain outside such a symbiotic relationship with the Council.

We feel in conclusion that freedom and autonomy for IITs are essential, but these have to be exercised judiciously. There will be a limitation to this freedom in so far as the decision of one IIT affects the other

82

IITs and enhances the financial commitment of the Government. Secondly, it is good for the IITs to have the views of a similar peer group outside the IIT system, as the Council embodies. Thirdly, it must also be realized that accountability goes with autonomy and the IITs are accountable to the Parliament and the people through their Council, whose decisions cannot be considered an infringement of the autonomy. Government on their part may refrain from referring cases to the IITs which can be construed as interference.

Having emphasised the authority of the Council in principle, we must also state that in our view the Council at present, does not function effectively. The Council must meet more frequently and make structural provisions whereby decisions can be taken faster and collectively. It is for these objects that we are suggesting some changes in the management and structure of the IIT system such as the Council and the Board of Governors. Representation of the Government on the Board of Governors of the respective IITs was suggested by some. IITs in general perceive Government representation on their Boards as an unnecessary interference and, we find that it is wise to continue the status quo.

We also received a suggestion that, 25 years ago, it might have been valid to create, the IITs as special institutions but there is no reason now to keep them isolated from the main stream of the country's academic life; and that they should fully participate and cooperate with the other institutions in the University system. It was suggested to us that the UGC which was created for overseeing the whole of higher education, should also look after the IITs. On the other hand we also received strong representation that the institutions taken over the UGC are not being looked after well and that the IITs' pre-eminence is entirely due to their autonomy and ability to decide things for themselves. Therefore, if the goal of excellence is set for IITs, it is absolutely essential that they are not brought under the UGC system. IITs also have complained that adopting the UGC pay scales and in some cases UGC norms, which may otherwise be valid for engineering colleges, has adversely affected the IITs and that it will be a retrograde step to disassociate IITs from its Council and hand them over to the University Grants Commission. Except the State Universities established by an Act of State Legislature, a number of institutions such as NITIE, NIFFT, Institutes of Management are already outside the UGC system. Kothari Commission (1974) too examined this problem and did not recommend the IITs being brought under the UGC. They said "The Institutes of Technology have already made a significant contribution to Technical Education and to provide for their further development they may be brought under UGC-type of body." We recommend that it would be unwise to bring IITs under the UGC system and attempt uniformity.

6.1.2 Council and its Advisory Committees

The Council of IITs, as constituted at present, with the functions stated in the Act and Statutes, provides a good balance between the IITs and also acts at an interface between the IIT system and the government through the Minister of Human Resource Development, who is the Chairman of the Council of IITs. During our visits, we gathered that the IITs themselves prefer an autonomous body like UGC to look after their interest but they would not like to be a part of the UGC. We however, noted that infrequent holding of the meetings of the Council for various reasons, not excluding the preoccupation of its Chairman, delays decisions. The Ministry, with a view to speed up, places a view to the Minister and the orders of the Minister are passed in his capacity as Chairman of the Council which do not always get acceptance of the IIT system as a whole.

Basically, therefore, there is no need to change the composition of the Council. However, there is a need to make specific provisions for the Council to meet regularly.

It was pointed out by many members of the Council/Board that undue secrecy is maintained with regard to decisions of various authorities like the Council, Board of Governors etc. We feel that all persons in the system must be encouraged so that the views of these groups.are placed correctly and in order that these organisations/groups are aware of the decisions, we recommend that specific decisions taken by the Council/Board of Governors/Finance Committee/Senate etc. should be made available to all concerned without restrictions.

83

Opinion was voiced by many in response to our questionnaires both from India and abroad, that the way the Council of IITs now functions does not help the IITs. Many feel that there is a bureaucratic interference with the IITs and the Council is not managing the IITs on any firm basis. At the same time there was a felt need for an interface between the IITs and the Government of India and that the Council of IITs could be made to function more effectively to solve the problems of IITs.

We feel that a Council of IITs is essential and that the functions of the Council can be discharged more efficiently by two separate Advisory Committees of the Council viz:

1. Academic Advisory Committee

2. Administrative Advisory Committee

These Committees will transact the business in a professional way between the Council meetings, as against the practice now obtaining viz. Ministry advising the Council's Chairman. The Academic Advisory Committee will deal entirely with the academic functions of the Council as stipulated under the Act; while the Administrative Advisory Committee will deal with administrative functions of the Council.

The Administrative Advisory Committee shall have twelve members. The Chairman of the Council will nominate one of the Council members as the Chairman of this Committee. The other eleven members will include:

- all the five Directors of the Us;

- three management experts from outside, nominated by the Council;