6.1 Bare Act Provision
1[5. Composition of the Commission.—
(1) The Commission shall consist of—
(i) a Chairman,
(ii) a Vice-Chairman, and
(iii) ten other members,
to be appointed by the Central Government.
(2) The Chairman shall be chosen from among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government.
(3) Of the other members referred to in clause (iii) of sub-section (1)—
(a) two shall be chosen from among the officers of the Central Government, to represent that Government;
(b) not less than four shall be chosen from among persons who are, at the time when they are so chosen, teachers of Universities; and
(c) the remainder shall be chosen from among persons—
(i) who have knowledge of, or experience in, agriculture, commerce, forestry or industry;
(ii) who are members of the engineering, legal, medical or any other learned profession; or
(iii) who are Vice-Chancellors of Universities or who, not being teachers of Universities, are, in the opinion of the Central Government, educationists of repute or have obtained high academic distinctions:
Provided that not less than one-half of the number chosen under this clause shall be from among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government.
(4) The Vice-Chairman shall exercise such of the powers, and discharge such of the duties, of the Chairman as may be prescribed.
(5) Every appointment under this section shall take effect from the date on which it is notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.]
Footnote from Bare Act:
1. Subs. by s. 3, ibid., for section 5 (w.e.f. 17-6-1972).
6.2 Explanation
Section 5 of the UGC Act, outlines the composition of the Commission, ensuring a balanced representation that promotes independent and expert-driven functioning in higher education matters. Section 2(d) acts as the legal glue that groups all these individuals under the single umbrella term member for the rest of the Act. The decision in relation to academic matters are arrived at collectively by the Commission, which is a multi-member body established under Section 5 of the said Act. The members include persons, who are teachers in universities and also others who are experienced and knowledgeable in various other fields. The purpose of university education is multi-directional, its object is to provide structured instruction in all subjects of relevance and interests. In a country like India, there are various subjects in which instructions need to be imparted in a structured manner in view of the relevance of these subjects to society.
Sub-section (1) provides that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and ten other members, all to be appointed by the Central Government. This structure establishes a multi-member body where decisions on academic matters are arrived at collectively, incorporating expertise from university teachers as well as professionals from diverse fields to address the multi-directional purposes of university education, including structured instruction across subjects relevant to society in a country like India.[1] The composition reflects a predominance of independent academicians over government-nominated functionaries, which supports the independent operation of the UGC as the apex body for improving university education and allocating funds accordingly.[2]
Under sub-section (2), the Chairman shall be chosen from among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government, thereby ensuring leadership free from direct governmental service influence to maintain autonomy in academic and policy decisions.[3]
Sub-section (3) details the qualifications for the ten other members referred to in sub-section (1). Clause (a) requires that two shall be chosen from among the officers of the Central Government to represent that Government. Clause (b) mandates that not less than four shall be chosen from among persons who are, at the time when they are so chosen, teachers of Universities, emphasizing academic expertise. Clause (c) provides that the remainder shall be chosen from among persons who have knowledge of, or experience in, agriculture, commerce, forestry or industry; who are members of the engineering, legal, medical or any other learned profession; or who are Vice-Chancellors of Universities or who, not being teachers of Universities, are, in the opinion of the Central Government, educationists of repute or have obtained high academic distinctions.[4] The proviso to this sub-section stipulates that not less than one-half of the number chosen under clause (c) shall be from among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government, reinforcing the emphasis on non-official, independent representation. This diverse composition enables the Commission to draw on specialized knowledge from various domains while prioritizing academic and professional independence.
Sub-section (4) states that the Vice-Chairman shall exercise such of the powers, and discharge such of the duties, of the Chairman as may be prescribed, allowing for continuity and delegation in leadership functions when required.
Sub-section (5) provides that every appointment under this section shall take effect from the date on which it is notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, formalizing the commencement of tenure for all members.
6.3 Critical Analysis
Procedural Delay: The primary source of delay in Section 5 lies in Sub-section (5), which mandates that every appointment must be notified in the Official Gazette. Because the Commission relies on a specific quorum and a balance of categories such as teachers, professionals, officers; a delay in the Central Government’s notification process for even one or two members can leave the Commission understrength. When a statute requires a body to be “constituted” in a specific manner, the absence of key members due to notification delays can lead to challenges regarding the validity of the body’s decisions during that interim period.[5] Historically, the positions of Chairman or Vice-Chairman have occasionally remained vacant for months. The appointment process involves a Search-cum-Selection Committee, and in some instances, this process has taken several months, resulting in the commission operating without a full-time, permanent head. This situation forced the officers of the Central Government mentioned in Section 5(3)(a) to handle routine matters, which slows down substantive policy decisions.[6] Why there is no time frame described in this provision?
Constitutional Validity and Ultra Vires: Section 5 is generally constitutionally sound under Entry 66 of List I, but the selection process in 5(3) faces scrutiny regarding the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. The inclusion of officers of the Central Government as per Section 5(3)(a) to represent the government on an autonomous regulatory body is often criticized. If these officers exert executive control that overrides the academic independence of the teachers as under Section 5(3)(b), it could be argued as a violation of the institutional autonomy implicit in the right to education and the federal balance. The Supreme Court emphasized that the UGC’s composition and functions must ensure that the “coordination and determination of standards” are not diluted by political or executive overreach.[7] Even after independence and even having fundamental rights friendly constitution, we are not able to curb political overreach in any of department. Although there is only 5 years term of office, still every department under any ministry or State government is influenced by the political will in this nation. Why we are in such pitiful situation?
Colonial Era Policy and Relevance: The rigid Category-based Representation in Section 5(3)(c) reflects an early 20th-century view of learned professions and repute. Why there is no representation for faculties of arts, commerce and other subjects of humanities? And even though there is representation of reputed professional fields, why there is still outdated syllabus? The list of Clause (c) specifically mentions agriculture, commerce, forestry or industry, which mirrors the economic priorities of the 1950s. In the present era, this list is outdated as it ignores critical modern fields like Information Technology, Biotechnology, or Artificial Intelligence. Furthermore, the Vice-Chairman’s role is defined under Section 5(4). The use of word prescribed is a colonial administrative trope that keeps the deputy position subordinate rather than having a distinct, modern operational mandate. Although NEP-2020 advocates the superiority of HECI over UGC, but no such authority is established till this date, and even no bill related to HECI has been passed by the Parliament of India. Why this government is not able to pass a single bill?
Room for Misinterpretation: Section 5(3)(c)(iii) allows the government to appoint educationists of repute, which is highly subjective. The term “educationist of repute” is not defined in the Act. This lack of a statutory yardstick allows the Central Government to interpret “repute” based on political alignment rather than academic merit. This has led to repeated controversies regarding the politicization of the Commission, and every ruling party has been criticized for this. Now in new India, which is also called as Bharat, we need people in office on the basis of merit and not on the basis of any birth identity or political alignment.As held Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1], case subjective satisfaction of the government is not immune from judicial review if it is based on irrelevant considerations or malafides. This is same as opinion of the Central Government in 5(3)(c)(iii).
[1] P.M. Bhargava & Ors vs University Grants Commission & Anr [3478, 2004 (6) SCC 661]
[2] Sarvoday Kelavni Samaj vs State Of Gujarat [AIR 2016 (NOC) 243 (GUJ.)]
[3] Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad, 2012 SCC OnLine All 667
[4] Annual Report 2023-24, University Grants Commission, 2024
[5] State Of Gujrat vs M.P. Shah Charitable Trust [1994 SCC (3) 552, JT 1994 (3) 96]
[6] Basant Kumar Mohanty, “University Grants Commission set to be left without top functionaries”, The Telegraph Online, Dt. 6.12.2021, available at: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/university-grants-commission-set-to-become-headless/cid/1842011, last visited on 7.3.2026
[7] Prof. Yashpal & Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors [2005 AIR SCW 1168]
