REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON 'MODEL ACT' FOR UNIVERSITIES'

 INTRODUCTION

Appointment of the Committee, Terms of Reference and Meetings of the Committee

The Ministry of Education appointed in December 1961 a Committee with the following members to consider broadly the organisational structure of the Universities in India and to prepare the outline of a 'Model Act' suited to their role and functions in the present context of our fast developing society :

Dr. D.S. Kothari .. Chairman Chairman University Grants Commission

Shri S.R. Das .. Member Vice-Chancellor Visva-Bharati (appointed in September 1962) Prof. A.A.A. Fyzee " Formerly Vice-Chancellor Jammu & Kashmir University (resigned in August 1962) Shri S. Govindarajulu .. Vice-Chancellor Sri Venkateswara University

Shri Prem Kirpal .. Secretary Ministry of Education

Shri Samuel Mathai .. Vice-Chancellor Kerala University

Prof. N.K. Sidhanta .. Vice-Chancellor University of Delhi

Prof. M.N. Srinivas .. Department of Sociology Delhi School of Economics University of Delhi

Shri T.S. Bhatia .. Secretary Deputy Secretary Ministry of Education

The committee had the misfortune of losing the valuable assistance of Professor N.K. Sidhanta who passed away shortly after the committee was set up.

In August 1962 Prof. A.A.A. Fyzee resigned from the committee as he was going out of country for some time. Shri S.R. Das, Vice- Chancellor, Visva-Bharati, joined the committee in September 1962. Professor M.N. Srinivas could not attend meetings of the committee held after March 1964 as he was out of India.

Shri K.L. Josh, Secretary, University Grants Commission was also associated with the work of the committee at the instance of the Chairman.

The committee met 17 times at Delhi; the meetings were on 16th, 18th and 22nd January, 13th March, 26th April, 21st August, 4th October, 6th November and 4th December 1962, 5th March, 7th July, 9th August, 3rd September 1963, 2nd March, 6th August, 4th December and 30th December 1964.

The committee regrets that because of changes in the membership of the committee and owing to other unavoidable reasons there has been considerable delay in submitting the report.

The nature of the problem covering a wide range of activities and functions that the committee was asked to consider is, as is well recognised, too complex and involved to admit of any simple or clear- cut solution. An inherent difficulty is that in the case of universities, as indeed of any large self-governing institution, the actual functioning sometimes differs markedly from the spirit and intention of the written constitution. In many important respects the written constitution does not reflect correctly the practice that has developed. For this reason, a comparative study of written constitutions of universities by itself may not be a sufficient guide in the preparation of a new Act. The respect for law and the manner in which a constitution is worked are factors of the utmost importance. Any constitution, if worked with reasonableness and understanding can be made a success within fairly wide limits, and it is equally true that no constitution, howsoever carefully and elaborately drawn up, can altogether prevent abuse or inefficiency. This, however, does not dispense with the need for modifying and improving existing university constitutions in the light of our own experience and the experience of universities in other countries. The implications of several of the questions' with which the committee was concerned required a considerable amount of discussion, sometimes at several meetings, before it was possible to arrive at agreed conclusions. The committee hopes that its examination of the relative merits of different types of Organisation and its recommendations, will be of value to the authorities concerned with the formulation or revision of University Acts, confronted as they might be with conflicting views on

more than one important matter relating to university organisation. The committee realises that any particular suggestion made by it would require re-examination periodically in view of the developments taking place in the country.

The committee was faced at the outset with the words "Model Act" which occur in the terms of reference of the committee. The committee felt that it would hardly be useful and it may not even be possible, to prepare what could be properly described as a "Model Act". The existing University Acts contain many detailed provisions. The details differ widely from Act to Act even though there is a broad agreement in the organisational patterns of most of the Indian universities. The preparation of a Model Act with as many details as in the existing Acts would involve the undesirable task of choosing some of these details and modifying or discarding others without fully knowing the varying local circumstances. These details vary also because historically the development of university education in different States has not been uniform. While the London University had been taken more or less as the model for many of the Universities before 1947, the recommendations made in the University Education (Radhakrishnan) Commission's Report, 1949, influenced to some extent the constitutions of universities established after 1950. There were various other circumstances, both educational and social, which led to certain distinct features in the constitutions of some of the new universities. Also, some of the older universities modified their Acts to cope with new requirements.

A certain amount of variety in the pattern and Organisation of universities may be desirable in the interest of the development and progress of higher education in a large country like India. The committee has, therefore; not attempted to formulate a 'Model Act' as such, applicable to all universities, but has given considerable thought and attention to the formulation of general principles that should govern the formation of the principal "authorities" of a university and which may be thought of as the core of an Act. In other words, the committee's recommendations deal with only the most important aspects of the Organisation of a University and even here, alternatives are sometimes suggested, so as to make it possible to preserve practices and traditions which may have been found satisfactory in any existing university. In fact, any attempt to stereotype a constitution and provide for too many safeguards, may tend to make the constitution rigid and cumbersome, and, it may even interfere with the normal growth and progress of the institution. It is necessary that the constitution of a University should be formulated in sufficiently general terms so as to permit innovation and experimentation. The committee hopes that its recommendations will provide sufficient guide-lines in framing. constitutions for new universities and also help the older universities to change their organisations in the context of the present requirements of the country.

The committee has made some "negative suggestions" also. These are, in the view of the committee, as important as its positive recommendations. There are practices and methods to be avoided and it may be desirable to provide safeguards against them in the constitutions to be framed.

The expansion and development of university education during the last 15 years or so have been of great magnitude. While there were only 25 universities in 1949, in 1961 there were 44 and in 1964, 62; in addition there are 8 institutions of national importance and 9 institutions deemed to be universities under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, all of which are empowered to grant their own degrees. Numbers in all universities have increased. In 1950, the total number of students in the universities was about 3 lakhs; it has risen to about 14 lakhs in 1964. The Calcutta University had an enrolment of 45,000 in 1947 and this has now risen to 1, 17,000. Madras which had an enrolment of 29,000 in 1947 has today an enrolment of 64,000 in spite of a reduction in its area. Delhi which had an enrolment of 4,000 in 1947 has increased to about 27,000. Large numbers affect not only the quality and standard of teaching, but also put an undue strain on the organisational and administrative machinery of universities and colleges.

The rapid expansion of knowledge in recent years, specially in science and technology, necessitates frequent regrouping of subjects of study, and changes in syllabuses and fresh adaptations and adjustments in laboratory and library become necessary. Also, new techniques of teaching and examination have to be adopted from time to time. These call for a modification of the somewhat rigid structure prevailing in many of our universities. In other words, the constitution should allow for an adequate process of adaptation in response to a dynamic situation. It should not tend to freeze existing things in their present form. It should keep open avenues for improvement and provide every incentive and encouragement for the pursuit of excellence instead of seeking uniformity at a mediocre level. The laws made for the functioning of a university should allow sufficient scope for the development of healthy practices and conventions which are often stronger than legal enactments and are particularly suited to institutions pursuing higher learning and research. The main Act of a University should lay down the structure and Organisation in broad terms and the relevant details may be prescribed by statutes and ordinances.

It is perhaps unnecessary to state that the organisation of a university must above all be designed to achieve the objective in view which is the dissemination and discovery of knowledge and the intellectual training and discipline of youth. It can happen that laws made to govern public statutory bodies may thwart the realisation of its true objectives.

Shri Jawaharlal Nehru said some time ago in a convocation address: "A University stands for humanism, far tolerance, for reason, for progress, for the adventure of ideas and for the search of truth. It stands for the onward march of the human race towards even higher objectives. If the universities discharge their duty adequately, then, it is well with the nation and the people". The function of the University is not only to preserve, disseminate and advance knowledge but also to furnish intellectual leadership and moral tone to society. No less important is the role of universities in promoting national integration and a common culture, and in bringing about the social transformation that is desired. Finally, universities have also to provide trained personnel to advance the country's prosperity by making full use of modern knowledge. The organisational pattern must enable the universities to achieve these objectives.